Guest post by Steven Goddard
On the same day when President Obama and Prime Minister Brown separately warned of imminent economic catastrophe, the new US Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu issued a different catastrophe warning. The LA Times quoted him saying ““I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.”
This is a terrifying warning of drought, coming from a cabinet level official whom the LA Times describes as “not a climate scientist.” And perhaps a little surprising, since it was only two winters ago when the “world’s leading climate scientist” Dr. James Hansen, forecast a “Super El Niño” with severe flooding for California. Dr. Hansen has also warned of a return to wet El Niño conditions during the current year or so.
One of the commonly made claims from the AGW camp is that global warming is causing more El Niño events. Roger Pielke Sr. just did a web log on this topic.
El Niño Impacts: Weaker In The Past, Stronger In The Future?
“What about the future of El Niño? According to NCAR senior scientist Kevin Trenberth, ENSO’s impacts may be enhanced by human-produced climate change. El Niños have been unusually frequent since the mid- 1970s.
El Niño is famous for bringing copious amounts of rain and snow to California. I have spent several El Niño winters in the Bay Area where Dr. Chu lives, including the big one in 1998 when the rain was nearly continuous for months. Living Redwood trees were sliding across Highway 17 in the Santa Cruz mountains. I remember a wonderful weekend in LA in February, 2005 during their second wettest winter on record when they received six inches of rain in three days. It didn’t stop pouring for five seconds the entire weekend. According to NOAA:
(LA 2005) had its 2nd wettest rainfall season since records began in 1877 and the wettest season in 121 years. Over 37 inches of rain (37.25) fell downtown, just failing to reach the record 38.18 inches set during the 1883-1884 rainfall season. Average wet season rainfall for LA is 15.14 inches, making the 2004-2005 season 246% wetter than the 1971-2000 normal.
Snowfall in the Sierras is also normally high during El Niño years. Below is a graph of Lake Tahoe snowfall from 1918-2008 – official data taken from here. Not much of a trend, except to note that the Dust Bowl in the 1930s was dry, as Steinbeck and the Okies observed.
From: this spreadsheet El Niño years bring lots of water to the cities, farms and reservoirs, and allow for periods of high agricultural productivity. So I am not sure what it is that we are supposed to be terrified of – famously dry La Niña years in California, or famously wet El Niño years caused by “global warming?” The official horror story morphs so fast, it is often difficult to keep up. Reading Steinbeck, one might get the impression that dry periods are part of the normal climate cycle in California, rather than a recent invention caused by the burning of fossil fuels. President Roosevelt said at the time – “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.“Heavy rain and snow is forecast for California today.
Perhaps we now have the “Chu Effect” working in concert with the Gore Effect?
From weatherstreet.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And there was no mention of having to choose a president from AG and GWB?
>Whatever the case, this accusation is an interesting case of projection and scapegoating. A sceptic invents the strategy, and the blame is then transferred to the warming side.
The luntz PDF is on the web if you do a search. There are a number of classic interviews where climate change “sceptics” quickly correct themselves when they say global warming.
Luntz now acknowledges climate change is real and substantial threat. Sadly, those who hired him and use his communication tactic continue to believe otherwise.
Smokey: “There is no skeptic ‘strategy’…”
Notice that I said “a strategy”, not ‘the’ strategy. Luntz is a sceptic, and he developed a strategy, or at least tactic, for handling public perceptions of global warming.
“…natural historical variation. The status quo has nothing to prove…”
So ‘natural variation’ is the status quo or established position? Galileo challenged the established position. That makes AGWers = Galileo. Always knew it. Thanks for the confirmation.
“The AGW hypothesis has the burden of falsifying the accepted theory that the climate varies naturally within its normal historical parameters…”
AGW theory need only show that it is a better explanation than ‘natural variation’, which is useless as a theory since it explains everything and nothing.
“…by bringing ‘republican’ into an otherwise scientific discussion.”
I refer you back to the original comment by Richard Sharpe (17:53:36): “I think you mean climate change don’t you. That’s the new in term among the hysterical alarmists.”
Nothing very scientific about that comment. Furthermore, the context of the Luntz tactic is important: it was advice for sceptics, but not just any old sceptics, rather the Republican party and the Bush administration. Hard to downplay the importance of that context.
Rhys Jaggar (00:53:48) :
3. One wonders whether Dr Chu is angling for a job at Kleiner Perkin Caufield and Byers in a couple of years, who are no doubt delighted that he is talking up the need for new clean tech companies and products in their region?
I’m sure K.P. non exec director Al Gore could put in a good word for him…
4. Perhaps the answer is a series of transitory canals for water shovelling around the country? After all, with any weather, it seems to chuck it down somewhere. Washington State might have too much in the years ahead and Tennessee can ship it to Florida, perhaps?
My father is one of the civil engineers who developed the ‘National Water Grid’ in the UK. It ain’t rocket science. The Romans were doing this stuff 2000 years ago. Google ‘pont du gard’. An awsome structure when you stand right up close to it.
Brendan H, your last paragraph says it all. With you, AGW is completely political. Which is to say, unscientific. Go ahead, deny it. But your last paragraph makes it crystal clear to the most casual observer where you’re coming from.
I stand behind my 22:43:10 statement 100%. And I notice that you avoided answering any of the points that I raised. Let me ask you straight out: do you believe that people on this site are stupid?
Look at Katherine’s post above. Is she stupid, too? Is she deluded? Is everyone deluded — except for you and the handful of others who believe that an increase in a very minor trace gas is gonna getcha?
Tell us again how stupid we all are to accept natural climate variability. Should we unquestioningly accept what you hypothesize, without any measurable empirical evidence to back you up? And if so… why? Why should we believe that?
Joel is correct, the rate of change over the last century is at least an order of magnitude greater than that the planet undergoes when entering an interglacial, and the idea that global mean temperature is at 1980 level is absurd. [unless you indulge in some outrageous cherry-picking of individual months].
It is actually the ‘natural-only’ advocates who have the evidence shortage; no known natural driver of climate is capable of explaining the recent trend, whereas it is entirely consistent with natural fluctuation superimposed on an anthropogenically-forced rising trend.
Brendan H (01:48:15) :
So ‘natural variation’ is the status quo or established position? Galileo challenged the established position. That makes AGWers = Galileo. Always knew it. Thanks for the confirmation.”
Nice leap of logic there Mr H.
Santa Claus will be round soon with your medicine……..
Brendan H.
I think you will find that Galileo challenged the position of the tenets of the Catholic Church which was taxing the people (tithes) and enjoying the high life at everyone else’s expense on the premise of a set of beliefs that could not be proven, but nonetheless became woven into the fabric of the law of the lands globally. Does this sound familiar?
G’day Graeme Rodaughan (04:45:55),
I’va also voted for global warming being a myth along with an astounding 90+% of readers. The only problem with this is that Aunty ABC will now feel the need to indoctrinate.. umm make that educate, we non-believers. Penny Wong, the golden child of climate change debate will anaesthetise more audiences with her soporific rhetoric as Aunty tries to inculcate the myth into viewers’ and listeners’ minds. Thank the Lord for remote control 😉
John Phillip
If you were to discover that the underlying trend may have arisen almost entirely from controversial adjustments to the raw data would you change your tune?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/09/19/grilling-the-data/
Said adjustments, which assume biased error in the raw data, of course defy our common understanding of instrument error by not following a normal distribution. They instead seem to add 0.6 degrees of warming to the data before it even reaches Hadley. Heaven knows what Hadley then does with the data because they won’t say. We do know that they perform further adjustments though; they’ve told us that much. We also know that GISS has introduced a higher trend by adjustments.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers
Since Hadley and Giss seem to match well in the 30’s then we can assume that their adjustments are somewhat similar. Can we trust any adjustments that not only assume error in one direction only, thus defying our common experience, but which are of a magnitude equal to the final signal. Well you might but I don’t! I’d like to see a 20th century reconstruction using only the raw data.
Of course much of the trend may well also come from the now discredited sea surface data, where the temperature was mostly ascertained by throwing a bucket over the side, scooping up some water and sticking a thermometer into it. Of course there’s a bucket adjustment to be done for that too. The last 5 years of proper sea surface temperature measurement show no rising trend: And they only got that because they adjusted an apparent cooling trend upwards. Too little data of course but a sight more reliable than the junk data that came before.
I’m fairly sure we can likely trust the satellite data from 79, which of course shows warming for 20 years and plateauing for 10 years. This short record may be ok though because the IPCC says only the since 1950 can we attribute any human warming to the data, despite the number of people (you included) who claim attribution over the entire twentieth century. And of course, from 1950 to 1975 we were supposed to have had artificially cooling by aerosols if you believe one of the more popular AGW handwaves. Was that 20 year warming trend then a recovery due to cleaner air? I don’t believe that’s a defensible argument, though it’s consistent with AGW dogma and has some papers to back it up. But then I don’t accept that natural variation has been properly accounted for either.
One of the few places we can probably trust the data is in the Arctic, where apparently it’s as warm now as it was in the 30’s. Also the relatively well-tested US data suggests the same thing. So if it’s a natural cycle then we may be in for a cooler period in the Northern hemisphere. Time will tell.
DJ (19:25:15) : “CO2 went up from 180 to 280ppm over that period. That explains a large part of the warming.”
Methinks it was the other way around.
I regret that it isn’t so because I would certainly like it a lot warmer. If we could warm our Earth by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, then I say pump away!! Warm is good.
While I do not subscribe to consipracy theories, this is interesting:
Excerpt from
http://www.green-agenda.com/
THE GREEN AGENDA
We all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:
(references and sources for the quotes below can be found here)
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank
consultants to the United Nations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
– Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Principal Research Scientist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Climate Change is the greatest threat that
human civilization has ever faced.”
– Angela Merkel,
German Chancellor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”
– Barak Obama,
US Presidential Candidate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We simply must do everything we can in our power to
slow down global warming before it is too late.”
– Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…continued at
http://www.green-agenda.com/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/jan_co2_report.pdf
SPPI MONTHLY CO2 REPORT – JANUARY 2009
The Bush Years: 8 years of global cooling
SPPI’s Monthly CO2 Report shows that throughout the eight years of George Bush’s presidency there has been a downtrend in global temperature at a rate equivalent to 2 °F (1.1 °C) per century. Main points –
Since Al Gore’s climate movie An Inconvenient Truth was launched in January 2005, global cooling has occurred at the equivalent of 11 °F (6 °C) per century. If this very rapid cooling were to continue, the Earth would be in an Ice Age by 2100.
The UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, had projected temperature increases at 4.5 to 9.5 °F (2.4 to 5.3 °C) per century, with a central estimate of 7 °F (3.9 °C) per century. None of the IPCC’s computer models had predicted a prolonged cooling.
The IPCC’s estimates of growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration are excessive. They assume CO2 concentration will rise exponentially from today’s 385 parts per million to reach 730 to 1020 ppm, central estimate 836 ppm, by 2100.
However, during President Bush’s eight-year term, CO2 concentration rose in a straight line towards just 575 ppmv by 2100.
This alone halves the IPCC’s temperature projections. Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.5 °C) per century.
The University of Colorado has published no sea-level data from the JASON
monitoring satellite since the summer of 2008.
However, sea level has been rising at just 1 ft (32 cm) per century, well below the IPCC’s recently-reduced 2 ft maximum.
Sea ice extent in the Arctic recovered to the 30-year average during the early winter of 2008. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high late in 2007, and has remained plentiful since. Global sea ice extent shows no trend for 30 years.
The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index is a 24-month running sum of monthly energy levels in all hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index hit a 30-year low in October 2008.
A paper explaining how SPPI’s CO2 and temperature graphs are computer-generated is under peer review and will be available soon.
For future editions of the Monthly CO2 Report, go to http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
The Chu Effect seems to be kicking in hard. NCEP is forecasting 7+ inches of rain for the Central Valley of California over the next two weeks.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/prec1.html
Brendan H (01:48:15) :
AGW theory need only show that it is a better explanation than ‘natural variation’, which is useless as a theory since it explains everything and nothing.
John Philip (03:17:05) :
It is actually the ‘natural-only’ advocates who have the evidence shortage; no known natural driver of climate is capable of explaining the recent trend, whereas it is entirely consistent with natural fluctuation superimposed on an anthropogenically-forced rising trend.
Interesting set of propositions.
Guys, you can’t have it both ways. Time to huddle and see if you can agree, before you try to convert the unwashed masses.
HINT: I would want to revisit the phrase “no known natural driver of climate is capable of…” Your sense of climate history sound suspiciously ‘Lyellian.’ I’m sure there are many posters here who can point you to historical instances of change as “rapid” or more rapid than the 20th c. uptick. Whether the cause of these trendings has been definitively established is not at issue (HINT: Google “Svensmark”). I trust you will acknowledge that they were not, like the warming trend from c. 1880-1940, a result of human CO2 emmissions.
That’s assuming that the real cause of the 20th c. dynamic is not heat islands, data corrupted by manipulation, and other, um, “natural” causes like the power of money to deform institutionalized science. And its also assuming that we ignore the increasingly evident divergence between accumulating C02 and stable or even slightly declining temperatures over the past 8 years.
“Scare,” a two-minute video highlighting the scare tactics of global-warming alarmists was produced for the Heartland Institute. Heartland released the video in the wake of former vice president Al Gore’s claim before a U.S. Senate committee January 28 that “scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops” about the threat of global warming.
The first part of “Scare” shows President Barack Obama asserting that “the science is settled” on global warming and alarmist predictions of death and destruction. The voice-over suggests some of the alarmist propaganda is backed by “corporations heavily invested in so-called green technology.”
With video footage of social and political unrest flashing, the video warns that the “cost of force-feeding these technologies into every corner of our lives could bankrupt a world already teetering on financial ruin.”
The second half of the video features several science-based facts about climate change, including that the Earth has been cooling in recent years and global temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years.
It concludes by inviting viewers to attend the International Conference on Climate Change, where they can learn the Earth isn’t in crisis, and the presenters “have the science to prove it.”
“This is a provocative video on one of the most important public policy issues of day,”said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “Heartland has distributed more than 1 million videos and books presenting scientific and economic facts that show global warming is not a crisis. We hope this video and the conference it is helping to promote are the final stake in the heart of global warming alarmism.”
The video is available on several sites on the Web, including YouTube, Heartland’s Facebook page, and at http://www.heartland.org
I agree with you, but I actually don’t mind when this happens, as there has been a major shift recently – previously, the Penny Wongs and the MSM could get away with trying to indocrinate, since most people didn’t have an opinion one way or the other.
But the public opinion has changed (as we see in the poll, limited though it is). Now, the more desperate the AGWers get, the more nonsense they make up (like the report stating that global warming can cause a change in Earth’s rotational axis – yeah right!). They are making bigger fools of themselves, and more people are seeing this. So bring it on, I say, let’s see where it leads.
I wonder if Anthony, or any of the stats experts who post here, have seen any studies of public statements (media, gov’t, etc.) that chart the use of the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” versus the meteorological season.
I’d bet the same entities (AP, NYT, GISS) use “global warming” in the summer and “climate change” when it’s cool.
Video called “Snowjob” quoting scientists…
Joel Shore (21:00:32) :
In addition to DJ’s note that rises in CO2 did indeed have something to do with the warming since the last ice age, it is also worth noting this: If your logic is to attribute the warming in the 20th century to still being due to warming out of the last ice age, we could note that if we had warmed for the last ~15,000 years since the last global maximum at a rate of ~0.7 C thatDwas seen in the 20th century, then the Earth’s average temperature would be somewhere around or a little bit above 100 C, i.e., the above the boiling point of water, by now!
Why would anyone want to assume that the trend you are discussing is linear? And if it is supposed to be linear, your theory of causation has been falsified by the last eight years of stable temps coupled with significantly rising C02 — a trend that, in my estimation, appears likely to continue for the forseeable future as we enter what looks to be a doozy of a solar minima.
Face it: the system is more complex by an order of magnitude than CO2 models allow. There are other long term factors, such as the size and strength of the solar magnetosphere and its impact on low level cloud formation, as well as oceanic thermal mass and thermal flows, antarctic albedo, etc, that are at least as important as C02.
Drivers like changes in the solar magnetosphere (and other factors influencing cloud formation) have been shaping the planet’s climate for millions of years, producing the kind of oscillations in temperature incorrectly identified by Al Gore as being caused by C02 increase, without the help of human beings.
Could CO2 be an influence? Sure. Maybe. But, as others have said on this thread, the burden of proof is on the warmists, and so far, you’ll haven’t even come close to supplying it.
“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said.
Chu made clear that he sees public education as a key part of the administration’s strategy to fight global warming…
But he said public awareness needs to catch up. He compared the situation to a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down.
“I’m hoping that the American people will wake up,” Chu said, and pay the cost of rewiring.
This is straight out of George Orwell. We have the ministry of Truth needing to “educate” the masses who still haven’t “gripped in its gut what could happen”, meaning we still aren’t ALARMED enough about what “could happen”. Indeed, they even admit that this “education” is a key part of their strategy.
His analogy of course is entirely false, and just more alarmist nonsense. What else could one expect, though, from the Ministry of Truth?
The American people are, for the most part, wide awake, and aware that AGW alarmism has very little to do with truth, and mostly hype and pure fantasy, and that politicians and fraudsters like Gore have their greedy, grubby hands on their wallets. Woe betide them when the rest wake up.
Here is a Video by warmers who DO believe in conspiracy theories (when in doubt, blame big oil).
The Climate Change Denial Industry
My comment:
Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) comprise over 85% of global primary energy – the remainder is mostly nuclear and hydro. Wind, geothermal and solar don’t amount to much, and neither do biofuels. It is ironic that so many people in the developed world loath energy companies, and yet fossil fuels are essential to keep them and their families from freezing and starving. Many Europeans and North Americans have bought into this irrational hatred – as they huddle in their homes during this cold winter, perhaps some of them will realize that rational energy policies and capable energy companies are essential for their survival.
Regards, Allan
E.M.Smith (14:42:47) :
It still bothers me that this is all ‘numerology’ and that there is no mechanism demonstrated ( a couple are proposed )
Love your posts, E.M.
I believe that Svensgard’s proposed mechanism for how decreased solar magnetosphere can produce increased cloud cover (which causes warming everywhere but in Antarctica) is not only well understood but has been experimentally demonstrated (and CERI is gearing up to see if it can be verified).
For my money, Geoff Sharp and the Landscheit folks seem to have solved the other half of the equation, which is what causes oscillation in the sun’s magnetic field. To me it seems only natural that the sun will be influenced by the planets in the way they have not only postulated but demonstrated through historical analysis that it must be.
DJ (19:22:35) :
That’s so cool – the Green movement picked up on a Bushism and made it a feather in their cap? Back in the American Revolutioinary war days, the Brits referred to the colonials as Yankee Doodle Dandys as derogatory term, but we embraced the term to annoy the heck out of the Brits.
And all this time I thought the AGW community adopted the the term to avoid talking about how cooling might negate concerns about warming.
Wow,
Our earth must be rewired! I guess next the plumbing will go, then the roof, then we’ll need a new driveway… Heck, maybe we should knock it down and rebuild!!!