Quote of the week #26

It’s been awhile since I posted this feature, Climategate got into the mix and there was so much going on I simply forgot to look for interesting quotes.


This week’s quote is prescient and entertaining at the same time. I predict it will be repeated on the blogosphere hundreds if not thousands of times.

Comment left on Lucia’s Blackboard by Kusigrosz:

“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather kills people”.

Seen on Dr Clam’s accidental blog.

Shortened, it flows better:

“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather does.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2010 7:32 pm

so then what does Chuck Norris do?

Mike Bryant
January 19, 2010 7:34 pm

That is just perfect…

January 19, 2010 7:38 pm

People didn’t kill climate change. Weather did.

Dave F
January 19, 2010 7:39 pm

Chuck (19:32:34) :
That’s not a hurricane. That’s Chuck practicing a roundhouse.

R Shearer
January 19, 2010 7:43 pm

While the quote is generally true, one could say that climate kills the unprepared. Certainly, weather is less discriminating and more devestating in the short term.

Baa Humbug
January 19, 2010 7:47 pm

I’ve often made similar statements. The statement is true though can appear funny out of context 🙂

January 19, 2010 7:49 pm

I prefer the longer, original, quote.
“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather kills people”.
The reiteration of kill(s) people has a greater impact.

David Ball
January 19, 2010 7:51 pm

Climate change doesn’t kill people, cold weather does!!

January 19, 2010 7:52 pm

Actually, I kinda like the rhythm of the original version better.

Mariss Freimanis
January 19, 2010 7:54 pm

Climate doesn’t kill science; Mann-made hockey sticks kill science.

January 19, 2010 7:54 pm

Whenever I’m asked (or told) how climate change will affect me and my business I always say, as a farmer, that climate change isn’t important, it is the weather that determines how well my business runs. Any climate change, up or down, is just another of the myriad of things we adapt to as we go along.
The other point i always make, when asked about these things, is that my business has much more to fear from climate change policy, than from climate change itself.

January 19, 2010 7:54 pm

I saw the same comment, it caught me as well.
Climate doesn’t kill people, weather kills people.

Mike Bryant
January 19, 2010 7:59 pm

Climate doesn’t kill people, fighting climate change kills people…

January 19, 2010 8:07 pm

Actually… climate does kill people (consider the Little Ice Age), so the quote does not stand up and could even be counter-productive in the education of those fearing (and those promoting) AGW when this is pointed out (particularly in a jeering kind of way).

Peter of Sydney
January 19, 2010 8:10 pm

So weather is to blame. Since the main driver of weather is the Sun, can we have a tax on the Sun instead of CO2?

January 19, 2010 8:10 pm

Off topic for the sake of non-US citizens.
Brown, a conservative, just won (by a significant margin) a special election senate seat in one of the most progressive states in the US.
While not directly tied to global warming, it signals a huge shift in public sentiment from a year ago, and a “referendum” against the socialist agenda driven by Obama. It is more related to the socialization of health care, but it sends a clear message for economic policy, including the advancement of the AGW agenda.

Pat Frank
January 19, 2010 8:13 pm

Yah, and when climate change is outlawed, only outlaws will change climate.

David Alan Evans
January 19, 2010 8:15 pm

If our demented government gets its way & power generation is 20% wind…
Anyone got central heating that doesn’t rely on electricity?

January 19, 2010 8:18 pm

“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather kills people. That’s how you know that weather is what is more important, not some abstract mathematical notion of climate.”

George S.
January 19, 2010 8:20 pm

People don’t change climate. Nature does.

January 19, 2010 8:27 pm

You can have my weather when you pry it from my cold, dead climate…..

January 19, 2010 8:33 pm

People didn’t kill climate change. Weather did.
Thread winner.

January 19, 2010 8:35 pm

Reuters India: Himalayan glacier meltdown: gospel truth?
But is the latest controversy over the Himalayan glaciers just a case of foot-in-mouth or are there more skeletons hiding in the cupboard?
Media reports say mystery surrounds the financial affairs of The Energy and Resources Institute, which is headed by Pachauri, known for his “$1,000 suits”.
Does this raise questions about the merit of scientific reports?
At the moment though, it’s not just the critics who feel the 2007 IPCC report may have exaggerated.

January 19, 2010 8:37 pm

Here we go…
This is your climate. This is your climate on a GCM. Any questions?

January 19, 2010 8:40 pm

Climate change didn’t kill anybody, world government did.

January 19, 2010 8:42 pm

Friends don’t let friends drive the climate.

January 19, 2010 8:43 pm

Wind Rider (20:33:16) : People didn’t kill climate change. Weather did.
Sweet, Wind Rider!

January 19, 2010 8:45 pm

Climate control is people control (it is!)

January 19, 2010 8:48 pm

Neither climate nor weather kill people: poverty does.

Lawrie Ayres
January 19, 2010 8:54 pm

Droughts, flooding rains Dorothea Mackellar. I think she knew more about climate than the scientists. Farmers have always been exposed to the weather and have learnt to adapt. The rest of the population see change as a matter of having an umbrella or not. Hot summers and warm winters won’t mean much except additional irrigation if rain is less than normal. Our PM Krudd and Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong have been making the connection between drought and CC but it seems our CSIRO has stated our current 13 year drought is not AGW related. See

January 19, 2010 8:57 pm

Indian Express: Hasnain speaks: Didn’t set glacier deadline, says man at centre of row
“All that I said then was that considering the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding, the mass of the glaciers was likely to decline dramatically in about 45-50 years. The 2035 date and the reference to the entire glaciers melting away was the journalist’s own speculation. I do not have any control over what a journalist writes after talking to me,” he said, adding that he continued to stand by what he had said then.
Asked why he did not issue a clarification after the publication of the interview, Hasnain claimed that he had never seen the interview.
“In those days, these magazines were not readily available. Besides, with time one tends to forget these things,” he said. ..
Hasnain, a former vice-chancellor of Calicut University who was honoured by the government with a Padma Shri last year, attacked the IPCC for not cross-checking facts before including them in its report.
“The biggest question is that why did the authors of the IPCC report rely on a news report and not go through other peer-reviewed studies on glaciers. There are plenty of studies on glaciers readily available,” he said.
Hindustan Times: ‘IPCC has a lot of answering to do’
Environment and Forest minister Jairam Ramesh, the first to challenge the IPCC claim on Himalayan glaciers in November his stand vindicated. He spoke to HT exclusively on the issue.
What do you say now that the IPCC has been proven wrong on Himalayan glaciers?
I was right on dismissing IPCC’s claim on Himalayan glaciers in November 2009. Then they (IPCC) termed it a voodoo science but now my position has been vindicated. The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on iota of scientific evidence. IPCC has to do a lot of answering on how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare.
What about the glaciers’ health?
Most glaciers are in a poor state, which is precarious. Some of them are receding but the rate of retreat like that of the Gangotri glacier has slowed down. A few glaciers are also advancing..
Most studies on the glaciers are from the West. Why?
It is true. Our scientific input on glaciology has eroded in recent years. It is for the second time, western studies have been proven wrong. In 1990, US Environment Protection Agency reported that 39 million tonnes of methane emitted each year was from wet paddy cultivation (mostly from India). We then found that it was actually 2 to 6 million tonnes. It emphasises that we need to improve our scientific capabilities on climate science.
Economic Times, India: IPCC imperialism on Indian glaciers
by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
It speaks volumes for the huge biases within IPCC that it took two years for this hoax to be exposed. Any hoax opposing the global warming thesis would be exposed in ten seconds flat. The IPCC is willing to swallow unexamined what it finds convenient, while raising a thousand technical objections to anything inconvenient. This is religious crusading, not objective science. The tactics being used to discredit and destroy heretics is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
Climategate-II is also a sad example of green imperialism. Rather than accept the findings of foreign scientists alone, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, appointed a panel of Indian scientists on Himalayan melting. “My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem.”
The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region. It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear. In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.
Scotching IPCC claims that the Gangotri glacier was retreating at an alarming rate, the Raina Panel said this glacier, the main source of the Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977, and “is today practically at a standstill”.
Raina said that the mistake made by western scientists “was to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas… In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is a completely different system.”
Justifiably, Jairam Ramesh felt vindicated. But the Raina report threatened the claim of IPCC scientists to omniscience and Nobel Prize status…
Goebbels once said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will think it is the truth. The glacier fiasco is the latest example of this.
Scientists are supposed to ask hard questions about spectacular new claims. Instead, the IPCC simply accepted without verification the reports of Himalayan glacial melting, and prominently highlighting this in its 2007 report.
Pachauri appointed Hasnain as a senior fellow at Teri. Together, they raised millions from international donors for research on glaciers at Teri. But when Climategate-II came to light, Pachauri declared that he had no responsibility for what Hasnain may have said! And Hasnain said, rather cheekily, that the IPCC had no business to cite his comments!
Pachauri is reported to have said in a telephonic interview, “We are looking at the issue and will be able to comment on the report after examining the facts. The science doesn’t change: Glaciers are melting across the globe and those in the Himalayas are no different. We’re not changing anything till we make an assessment.”
Clearly the true climate denier is Pachauri: he swears by glacial apocalypse even after its exposure as a hoax. When the Raina panel produced solid scientific evidence challenging the glacier melting thesis. Pachauri instantly decried it as schoolboy science and said condescendingly that it was not peer-reviewed. Yet he was happily willing to sanctify schoolboy speculation on glacial melting, and so were other members of the IPCC. All their high-faulting talk of peer-reviewed science proved to be just a tactic to keep out inconvenient views.
IPCC scientists responsible for this fiasco must resign. The 2007 IPCC report must be amended, preferably with an apology.
Various green NGOs — including one I respect, the Centre for Science and Environment — backed the IPCC against the Raina Panel. They blindly echoed western scientists with less intimate knowledge of the Himalayas than our own scientists. Stalin would have called this a case of Indian compradors acting as the lackeys of western imperialists, and on this occasion I would find it hard to disagree with him.
These green groups claim to be watchdogs for civil society, and often do a good job. But in this case they blithely allowed a hoax to go unchallenged for two years.
Glacier alarmism is not new. Greenpeace once published photos showing the rapid retreat of the Uppsala Glacier in Argentina, ascribing this to global warming. But when I visited the glacier, I was told that global warming was too gradual to account for the dramatic retreat of the glacier, and clearly powerful local causes were responsible. Of several glaciers descending from the South Andean Icefield, Uppsala was retreating, Perrito Moreno was advancing, and several others were stable. Such varying outcomes obviously reflected local geoclimatic variations, not global climate at all.
Will Greenpeace admit it? Not a chance. But if the IPCC wants to make amends for Climategate-II, perhaps it can start by apologising for glacier alarmism. That will help restore its scientific credibility.
Times of India: Glaciologist demands apology from Pachauri for ‘voodoo’ remark
India’s senior-most glaciologist V K Raina today said the chief of the UN climate body should apologise to the scientist fraternity for dubbing their work on melting of Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”. ..
“The IPCC had dumped our report that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. Now, with the truth out in open, the IPCC should dump its own report which was based on mere speculation,” Raina told PTI…
IPCC must be answerable to all the scientists and experts associated who stand vindicated that glaciers melting is not being happening at the abnormal pace as declared by it, Raina noted.
“It only shows that IPCC has based its arguments on speculations and did not verify it before making it public,” the former deputy director general of the Geological Survey of India said.
Raina, in his report, had maintained that glaciers have “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years and the reports of the glaciers demise are a bit premature.”

Peter of Sydney
January 19, 2010 9:02 pm

Climate change allowed life to flourish. Without climate change the world would be devoid of life.

January 19, 2010 9:04 pm

The Vikings in Greenland perished as the weather turned against them, and they refused to adapt t the cooling climate.
Word to the wise: Don’t look to control the climate, adapt to the weather.
You do this instinctively when you wear lighter clothes in summer and heavier clothes in winter.
You don’t wake up one sudden winter day and say “Gosh, it’s terribly cold outside, what am I to do?”
We don’t need no stinkin’ 8 megawatt petaflopping MegaComputers with shady characters stuffing fudged data into them to know what to do about what’s gong on outside.

January 19, 2010 9:06 pm

The IPCC and AGW are Edsels. Pull the plug.

Jeff L
January 19, 2010 9:08 pm

That’s a classic!
…so why worry about climate anyway :))

January 19, 2010 9:18 pm

I said something very similar. Only with a few more bonus words. Find it here:

January 19, 2010 9:27 pm

My money was on “peer speculation.” Oh well, easy go.

January 19, 2010 9:31 pm

Peter of Sydney, don’t give the idiots any more ideas.

David Ball
January 19, 2010 9:34 pm

My vote: WindRider

James the Simple
January 19, 2010 9:37 pm

Can’t believe no one’s gone here yet:
Chuck Norris’s tears would stop AGW.
Chuck Norris never cries.
(Well, maybe I can believe it…)

January 19, 2010 9:41 pm

All IPCC so called science is useless at this point. Soon the EPA will get the memo.
Lisa Murkowski Wants To Block The EPA From Regulating Greenhouse Gases, Has Democratic Co-Sponsor

John F. Hultquist
January 19, 2010 9:41 pm

The WSJ has a quote you might want to see:
Michael Mann’s Climate Stimulus
A case study in one job ‘saved.’

January 19, 2010 9:48 pm

It *flows* better? Except you just killed the obvious hommage it is intended to be to “Guns don’t kill people –people kill people”

January 19, 2010 9:49 pm

Today’s climate doesn’t kill people, and very rarely does weather kill people. Get back to me when the next ice age happens, my answer may change slightly.

Jerry Lee Davis
January 19, 2010 9:50 pm

In my view none of the above matches the quote from a political observer who said, after watching the 19 January returns from the Massachusetts senatorial election: “Cap and Trade is a dead duck.”

Doug S
January 19, 2010 9:51 pm

Check this out: Climate change kills butterflies.
“Just a several-degree rise in average temperatures over three decades led to a dive in the number of the colorful, fluttering insects thriving in the brisk environs of the high Sierra Nevada, according to a study from the University of California, Davis.
And with no higher ground to head to, prospects for alpine butterfly species such as the small wood nymph and Nevada skipper look bleak.
So while alpine natives like small wood nymph and Nevada skipper are declining, for the first time researchers are finding butterflies there that typically live at the 7,000-foot elevation. Anna blue and Hoffmann’s checkerspot butterflies in previous years were found only at the Donner Pass research site. But as average temperatures have increased about 7 degrees Fahrenheit in the Donner Pass area since the study began 35 years ago, they’re making cooler areas at higher elevations their new home.”

More scare mongering from the desperate AGW crowd.

Dave F
January 19, 2010 9:59 pm

I actually said this very thing on this blog a while ago under the handle “Ohioholic” (an inside joke about never leaving the state) in this thread:
CTRL+F = Ohioholic (20:40:56) :

T. Luxe
January 19, 2010 9:59 pm

The science no longer matters. This guy has changed everything.
Meet the newest US senator. A republican named Scott Brown just won the Senate seat which was vacant as a result of the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. There are now 41 Repuplicans in the US senate which has 100 senators in total. To bring a vote to the floor and avoid a filibuster requies 60 votes in the US Senate. Democrats now have only 59. Translation….. Cap and Trade is DOA in the US Senate. No US cap and trade in the USA, along with no support for Cap and Trade from China, India and Russia means that Europe and developed Asia will not sign any future Kyoto like agreements. While most of the world slept, the AGW argument was been settled by politics not science. Make no mistake about it, the AGW debate is over and Cap and Trade in the USA is dead forever! As a result, the IPCC is now totally irrelevant, and self proclaimed climate gurus like Mann,Briffa, Jones and Hanson are now only blabbering boobs who are wasting their time manufacturing useless models to promote their socialistic views. Poor Al Gore was debunked by the very internet he invented. The climategate crew has lost!!!! It is game…. set …. match. They will not admit or realize this for months, but the game is over and they can now kissm my (_#_)!!s
A word to the wise… by coal and oil stocks!

January 19, 2010 10:02 pm

Global Warming: That feeling when backing up against the heater on a really cold day.

January 19, 2010 10:06 pm

When is the EPA going to declare weather a pollutant and ban it?

January 19, 2010 10:11 pm

We Are Change Boston Questions Al Gore Again

January 19, 2010 10:39 pm

Doug S (21:51:02) :
“Check this out: Climate change kills butterflies.

No, no, no!
Don’t these scientists know anything about our chaotic climate? It’s the butter flies causing the who cause the problem in the first place.

January 19, 2010 10:43 pm

Environmental Activism 180 degrees.
“The 2nd Annual iGlobalForum Carbon Trading Summit took place last Wednesday, January 13th, sparking a large crowd of protestors and activists unhappy with the conclusion of the Copenhagen climate talks. Inside the Embassy Suites Hotel in New York City, market experts, lead executives, government officials, investment bankers, environmental specialists and policymakers met to discuss the future of the carbon market, while frustrated environmental activists rallied outside. No longer willing to leave important environmental issues in the hands of investment bankers and corporate executives, activists tore down the atrium curtain and interrupted the summit luncheon to make their voices heard. Their objective? To express their opposition to carbon trading. ”
Activists Protest Carbon Trading Summit
Reply: We have a tips page. ~ ctm
“NEW YORK–Some 100 people gathered outside the Embassy Suites in the heart of the financial district on January 13 to rally against the Second Annual Carbon Trading Summit, where the world’s most powerful institutions and industries discussed new opportunities at profit in the pollution market.”
The Earth is Not For Sale to Business

January 19, 2010 10:49 pm

I really think this needs to be a somewhat regular thread topic. A form of activism. Europe will eventually fall in line.
“The United Nations’ carbon credits to subsidize the production of agrofuels threaten biodiversity and forests, warns the Rainforest Rescue international campaign. These credits are facilitated through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a so-called “market mechanism” established as part of the Kyoto Protocol, which makes it possible for contaminating industries in Northern countries to “offset” their greenhouse gas emissions by financing projects in the Global South that supposedly sequester carbon.
“Most of the CDM carbon credits go toward polluting industries in the South, routinely at the expense of local communities, their rights, and their environment,” warns Rainforest Rescue, headquartered in Germany. “In future, more and more CDM carbon credits will go toward monoculture plantations in the South—now including soy, oil palms, and jatropha plantations for agrofuels.”
“Vast carbon dioxide emissions from coal power stations in Europe can now be officially ‘offset’ by companies paying for soy plantations in Brazil or palm oil plantations … which in turn will cause more deforestation and other ecosystem and thus, also, more climate change.”
The CDM Executive Committee’s decision to support this “carbon market” is owed in large part to a petition by the firm Agrenco Group. This company describes itself as an international firm that “specializes in supplying integrated solutions customized for clients and partners in the agribusiness sector … [serving] the full cycle from production to consumption for agricultural products, with financing for growers and consumers, origination, tracing, storage, logistics, port operations, charter freight, export, and distribution.””
Americas Program Biodiversity Report—December 2009
Reply: We have a tips page. ~ ctm

January 19, 2010 10:50 pm

Tenuc (22:39:49) : It’s the butterflies who cause the problem in the first place.
Lorenz knew stuff, huh, Tenuc? (One of my children’s books used the theme… long time ago.)

January 19, 2010 11:02 pm

You think this is a joke?
Let me see, Is this the Rothschild’s and Rockefeller’s holding a $13 trillion gun to our head?
“On the heels of international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen, the world’s largest investors issued a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to move quickly to adopt strong national climate policies that will spur low-carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change.
Private-sector investors will likely be responsible for financing more than 85 percent of the global transition to a low-carbon economy.
Saying ‘we cannot wait for a global treaty,’ U.S., European and Australian investor groups representing US$13 trillion in assets called on U.S. Congress and other global decision-makers ‘to take rapid action’ on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies that will accelerate clean energy investment and job creation.”
Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call for Climate Action Now
Reply: We have a tips page. ~ ctm

el gordo
January 19, 2010 11:19 pm

Death toll among UK pensioners (during the first week in January) was over 11,000. I like the bluntness of the original version.

January 19, 2010 11:34 pm

The quote looks like an adaptation of ‘earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings kill people’. See Haiti…

Baa Humbug
January 19, 2010 11:54 pm

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
“Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?”
Climate doesn’t kill people, weather kills people.
“Is that a Climate Widget in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?”

January 20, 2010 12:01 am

Tenuc (22:39:49) :

Doug S (21:51:02) :
“Check this out: Climate change kills butterflies.
No, no, no!
Don’t these scientists know anything about our chaotic climate? It’s the butterflies causing the problem in the first place.

Heh. Nicely put. 🙂

January 20, 2010 12:49 am

Sorry about that Charles,
Thanks for publishing.

Martin Brumby
January 20, 2010 1:09 am

“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather kills people”.
But scientifically illiterate, pompous and self righteous politicians who eagerly suck up the latest eco-fascist myth and dive into ludicrous and impractical “solutions” kill more people than the weather.
I recommend an investment in guillotines. (Or Halifax Gibbets, if you prefer.) We’re gonna need lots of ’em soon!

Dodgy Geezer
January 20, 2010 1:31 am

“That’s one small error from a Mann, one giant error for mankind…”

Dr Mo
January 20, 2010 3:43 am

George S. (20:20:19) :
People don’t change climate. Nature does.
Some people do attempt to change climate science. /Nature/ gives them a hand…

Chris Wright
January 20, 2010 3:59 am

In a sense people don’t get killed by natural disasters. They get killed by poverty. Haiti is a tragic illustration of this.
One of the tragedies of the man-made climate change delusion is that governments around the world will squander trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. It will divert huge resources from the real problem that faces the world today: poverty.

Chris Schoneveld
January 20, 2010 4:25 am

AlanG (23:34:43) : “The quote looks like an adaptation of ‘earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings kill people’.”
That is really a silly quote: Never heard of Tsunamis?

Anand Rajan KD
January 20, 2010 4:32 am

“Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.”
-Albert Einstein

Dodgy Geezer
January 20, 2010 4:58 am

@Chris Wright
“..One of the tragedies of the man-made climate change delusion is that governments around the world will squander trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist… ”
I’m not so sure.
Trillions of dollars are certainly getting spent, and the stated aim of spending will not be achieved. That much is certain. But I’m too old a cynic to think that the money will be ‘squandered’. That implies that the money will be spent ‘mistakenly’.
In fact, I think the money will be spend in a clever and quite intentional way. It will go to bolster the earnings of those who are in the Global Warming scam. There will be no ‘squandering’ about it, just misdirection and acquisition of funds by pretence – what you or I might term fraud…

January 20, 2010 5:01 am

nanny_govt_sucks (20:42:29) :
Friends don’t let friends drive the climate.
Nice! I have to go with this quote, quality. We can start SPANCD from that: “Sane People Against Nagging Climate Drivers”.

January 20, 2010 5:46 am

David Alan Evans (20:15:06) :
“Anyone got central heating that doesn’t rely on electricity?”
Was your question rhetorical? If not, then treble the insulation in your house, light it with candles and burn wood in Buckley Rumfords. Save the heat.
A small generator, batteries, an inverter and LED lighting. Boat technology, if you must have electricity.
Proper science applied with common sense.

January 20, 2010 5:55 am

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to Criticism.

Henry chance
January 20, 2010 6:04 am

Weather doesn’t necessarily kill. The only tornado that I have experienced was when I was in a large sailboat. We lived but a nearby boat it killed everyone. Their boat couldn’t handle it.
Adaptation is the key. We don’t read of deaths in the sahara that the eco terrorists/warm mongers will kill in Wisconsin.
Tsunami doesn’t kill people that are at a higher level of living. If you live near the ocean, you are now aware of your choice and risk.

Charles. U. Farley
January 20, 2010 7:06 am

Haitian earthquake, min 50, 000 dead and rising.
Global Warming deaths = 0.

ben corde
January 20, 2010 7:10 am

I’m not sure weather it does or not.

January 20, 2010 7:17 am

You may have my climate when you pry it from my cold, frostbitten fingers.

January 20, 2010 8:05 am

Climate doesn’t kill people – err… well, actually it does. Weather too, and cars, and aircraft, and food, or the lack thereof, water (too much or too little), electricity, earthquakes, tsunami, war, alcohol, stupidity, old age, being born (100% fatalities)…
Sorry – what was his point again?

John in NZ
January 20, 2010 8:11 am

@ geo (21:48:27) :
It *flows* better? Except you just killed the obvious hommage it is intended to be to “Guns don’t kill people –people kill people”
Couldn’t agree more. The long version is better.
or the NRA version.
“Guns don’t kill people –bullets kill people”

January 20, 2010 9:14 am

Maybe we should paraphrase Bill Hicks:
-Environmentalists die everyday.

David Alan Evans
January 20, 2010 10:13 am

Perry (05:46:35) :

Proper science applied with common sense.

Not to mention the non-existent money.
Disabled in council accommodation.

Stephen Brown
January 20, 2010 11:55 am

Here’s quote from the linked article:-
“Apart from the cost, there is a real threat to the health of elderly customers who are too scared to turn on their heating. It is feared the cold temperatures, which exacerbate many underlying health problems, could contribute to some 60,000 deaths.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243607/After-snow–One-giant-windfall-energy-firms-mammoth-heating-bill.html#ixzz0dBTiMz6y

Stephen Brown
January 20, 2010 12:32 pm

And here’s an article which does NOT attribute the near-demise of an insect species (a butterfly!!) to anything to do with AGW. YAY!!
The missing ‘ingredient’ was sheep, lots of downs-land grazing sheep to keep the ground cover low and to suitably disturb the soil!

January 20, 2010 3:01 pm

Per your prediction, it is now in my sidebar…with art.

January 20, 2010 4:13 pm

whether weather weathers climate change or whether climate change weathers weather.

Andew P.
January 20, 2010 4:30 pm

Anthony, may I suggest the following for the next quote of the week:
“I get the impression that whatever Rajendra is smoking is pretty robust.”
(by Mike D. (13:44:56) on the ‘IPCC admits error on Himalayan glacier melt fiasco’ thread).

Green Sand
January 20, 2010 5:09 pm

From – Brookhaven National Laboratory: Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
This is pure magic: –
“Daniel H (11:27:51) :
The real problem is that we are attempting to influence the height, frequency, and severity of chaotic ocean waves by shutting off the ship’s engines.”

Michael K
January 20, 2010 5:14 pm

Debate doesn’t kill science. Computer models do.

ian middleton
January 20, 2010 7:02 pm

Chuck Norris sleeps with a pillow under his gun and has to use a stunt double for the crying scenes.
I’m done.

January 21, 2010 8:38 am

OT…has anyone noticed the DMI Polar Temp…it’s in a tailspin …well below240(K)

That is not unusual, many years have been below 240K. What is unusual is the slope of change. We’ll keep an eye on it. Not news yet. – Anhony

January 21, 2010 11:27 am

Vis a vis the difference between climate and weather, long ago I once heard Linda Ellerbee on the Weekend show say, “Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.”

Roger Knights
January 21, 2010 12:16 pm

@Snertly: That quote originated with Robert A. Heinlein.

January 21, 2010 4:15 pm

Climate doesn’t kill people – WMD does (Weather of Mass Destruction).
For those of you who do not have the advantages of living in the UK, I should explain that we are right in the middle of the fifth inquiry in Iraq-gate WMD Weather of Mass … no sorry … Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is notorious in the UK, because we went and backed the idiot George Bush based on assurances from Bliar (yes the spelling is intended) that Sadam had WMD, that there was a real and imminent threat from WMD and that the evidence of WMD was unequivocal … and the dodgy IPCC… there I go again… the dodgy intelligence dossier was not “sexed up” so that the expert/scientific opinion did not change “I think it likely that glaciers will melt by 2035” to “the peer reviewed scientific literature says it is HIGHLY LIKELY glaciers will melt by 2035”.

George E. Smith
January 21, 2010 6:59 pm

Well there’s more to that short statement than meets the eye. One may argue that death is a non linear limit case of a weather discomfort. So long as one stays alive, one can make it through a weather event. But when you hit the stops and death results, all bets are off.
Than non linear discontinuity that death epitomizes, is one reason that I reject the “definition of climate as being the long term average of weather”.
You see when you average the weather, those limit cases vanish; in other words death does not occur under average weather conditions, which arguably proves the conjecture.
I prefer to say that climate is the long term integral of weather; and in that model, the deaths still occur; they aren’t homogenized out as climatologists like to do with the data. All the non-linearities survive in my definition of climate; whereas they do not in the official definition.

Anthony Isgar
January 21, 2010 10:06 pm

At one point in time, Saddam had WMDs. He used them (Mustard gas in rockets) on his own people (the Kurds in northern Iraq) to kill between 50,000 and 250,000 depending on which UN estimate you listen to. The UN put sanctions on him and implored him to stop producing the Mustard gas as well as to prove to UN inspectors that all the WMDs were destroyed. He never proved this, and even kicked the UN inspectors out of his country, thus he either still had them or he had sold them. This wasn’t some master plan concocted by Bush, there were almost 16 years of sanctions, and Clinton said “we must enact a regime change in Iraq”, and bombed a few aspirin factories while the Lewinski scandal was going on. Please at least know your facts when you decide to bring up a topic that isn’t even connected to the conversation.
I like the original longer version of the quote better, It reminds me of the bumper sticker I have on my car:
“Guns don’t kill people, I kill people”
Right next to
“I’m the quiet guy with a bag of lime and a shovel in my trunk.”

January 22, 2010 9:04 am

Dodgy Geezer (01:31:32) :
“That’s one small error from a Mann, one giant error for mankind…”
I think this is the best so far. Dodgy Geezer gives me many good laughs, to be honest!
However, we could refine it further.
Like e.g.;
“One small Trick for Mann, one giant Travesty for Mankind..”

%d bloggers like this: