Guest post by Thomas Fuller
The past month has been by turns eventful, maddening and hilarious. What it has not been, for 2010, is unusual. This year has been packed with news, opinion and stories regarding climate science, climate politics, climate news, and now thanks to Josh, even climate cartoons. There’s a reason why…
This week we have Steve McIntyre firing back at John Mashey and Raymond Bradley’s attack on Edward Wegman’s report on Mann’s Hockey Stick. Their attack happened last week, and pushed the 10:10 campaign to blow up children out of the climate news. It also pushed aside Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s decision to press ahead with subpoenas for Michael Mann’s emails.
You do realise that the whole year has been like this, right?
Hal Lewis, a prestigious physicist, resigned from the APS, citing their position on climate change as basically fraudulent as his reason. William Connelly, a long-standing editor at Wikipedia, was banned from his pet section on climate change after years of sanitizing climate entries to reflect the alarmist position. Rajendra Pachauri will stay on as head of the IPCC, falsifying my prediction some months back that he was for the high jump. Skeptics rejoiced. Pachauri still has not been able to explain why his UK charity suddenly found large amounts of undeclared income when faced with an audit. (Maybe it was hidden under a seat cushion.)
It appears that temperatures in New Zealand do not show a temperature rise until they are adjusted by scientists who trained with Phil Jones. It also appears that California’s restrictive laws on diesel fuel is based on science that got key metrics badly, badly wrong.
And The Royal Society issued a new statement on climate change, acknowledging that ‘the science is not settled.’
That’s just October, and the month is not even finished. People in the mainstream media who wonder why support for action to reverse or halt climate change has disappeared do not seem to understand that an almost daily diet of embarrassment does eventually have an effect. Because the mainstream media chooses not to cover these stories in any detail–often not at all–they forget that more people read this weblog than most newspapers, and they come from all around the world. They forget that every day, Roger Pielke Sr. presents news of scientific publications that challenge the alarmist consensus, and that his son daily tries to put boundaries around what is possible in terms of change. They certainly forget Steve McIntyre’s auditing of lax performance by climate scientists, and I doubt if they ever get past Lucia Liljegren’s haiku.
Every month this year has been like this. Much of the news has been of the climate ‘consensus’ shooting themselves in the foot–remember the Greenpeace blogger boasting that they know where skeptics live? Much of it has been measured responses to wild claims on their part.
There has been no news agenda, no concerted campaign, no oil money going after the climate icons. This year’s news has been largely driven by people with time and energy examining the claims that many used to accept, because they have lost confidence in the establishment and their pronouncements. Trust, once lost, is seldom re-bestowed, and there are now too many people scratching their heads when the CAGW crowd comes out with a new one, saying–‘Waitaminnit–let me see that. Where are the numbers and where did you get them from?’
But hey–it’ll quiet down, now. Right? Nothing ever happens in November…
That’s where they should look for the hidden heat. (Or is the heat hidden in Pachauri’s literary efforts?)
Something will happen in November, and it has institutions running for cover…. well….the smart ones that is.
Not only do people now eye Warmist claims suspiciously, they also keep an eye on the institutions that generate the numbers.
I predict considerable warming in the UK around the 5th.
Global warming, climate change, climate disruption…
….is so, like, yesterday
(Happy Halloween Tom!)
Thomas,
You know about the November 2nd election, particularly in California. Jerry Brown (former Governor Moonbeam from 30+ years ago (so named by a Chicago press writer)) or Meg Whitman for Governor, choose if you want to, or not, use a pink ballot button to blow up (or suspend for a long time the state’s climate change law) Proposition 23. The state can legalize grass for those over 21, as long as these adults pay tax. And that is just the start of the list. I think you will have plenty to write about in November. Especially in northern California. Add Virginia, a few well placed Senate races around the country, around a 100 House seats potentionaly in contention and you may want to seek a cure for writers cramp or use a very physically friendly keyboard. But nothing happens in November.
Tom,
October has another surprise as well. It appears that a new paper disclosed a large error in moisture feedback in models. I keep reading the CAM model trying to find where it’s included but basically, the pressure drop from condensation isn’t accounted for. Climate models therefore underestimate vertical wind to carry heat to the upper atmosphere.
If it’s true, it would mean a rework of climate models in general.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/momentary-lapse-of-reason/
Nature Mag has no shame:
Nature: “By and large, society now accepts that climate change is happening”, (see below). who are the people who don’t believe the climate changes, Nature? this kind of BS needs to stop now.
instead, Nature is publishing another mag entirely devoted to “climate change” “one of the greatest challenges for science and society”! give it up, Nature.
there must be some way to insist the MSM argues its case on what they really mean, namely MMGW. until that happens, the MSM will continue to control the narrative:
19 Oct: Nature: Nature Climate Change
A call to contribute
Next spring will bring a much-awaited and exciting new addition to the family of Nature journals. The newest of Nature’s research journals, Nature Climate Change will dedicate its coverage to one of the greatest challenges for science and society.
By and large, society now accepts that climate change is happening. But the science of global climate change is far from settled — large uncertainties remain regarding the rate of change and the scale and distribution of impacts.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/2010/101019/full/nclimate1000.html
Nice one Tom. No wonder the MSM is staying clear of this debacle. They don’t have the resources to cover every embarrassing point.. 😉
November, November, a month I remember
Not for wintry snows or rain-sodden gales
but rather for catching some rats by their tales.
Connive as they might, to stay safe and warm,
while all of our wallets became thin and worn.
But thanks to a gift, that came from someone
and lots of hard work by bloggers as one,
the truth of the matter, we have come to know,
inconvenient to them, as temperatures show.
tom, took a bit, but finally dawned on me aboot
november.
Priceless!
“And The Royal Society issued a new statement on climate change, acknowledging that ‘the science is not settled.’”
It does not say that, you are making things up. The word settled does not appear anywhere in the document despite your quotation marks. I hope people will read the RS report for themselves.
http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294972963
It does say: “There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses.” It goes on to describe those aspects of climate science that are “well established.” Read it for yourself and don’t let the propagandists frame it for you. (Making up quotes qualifies Eschenbach as a propagandist. He’ll claim that since he used single quotes instead of double quotes that he really didn’t mean it to be a literal quote. That just means he’s a clever propagandist who leaves himself room to wiggle in. There was no reason to use quotes at all except to deceive.)
Is evolution settled? There is scientific debate about how certain transitions occurred, but there is no scientific debate that life forms evolve over time primarily through natural selection. It is the same with climate science. We know we are causing potentially dangerous climate change. The only real question is can we change?
Apologies. I meant Fuller not Eschenbach.
A bit off topic, but it is a rather interesting October surprise.
Our esteemed host at WUWT has today published an Opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor. Its pretty much his piece from here last week on Hal Lewis, so nothing new for regulars, but a great leap for him and for respectability for the skeptic community.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1019/Climate-change-fraud-letter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history
Last month, former Canadian Government Minister of Defense Paul Hillyer said that UFO’s would visit Earth and bring to us the cure for Global Warming because they recognized from afar that we had reached the same tipping point that they had once reached on their own planet.
I am not a kook.
It’s ‘Connolley’, not ‘Connolly’. Better not to give the warmists any chance to nit-pick.
Mike, get your propagandists straight. Quick question: Is quantum physics settled?
pat says:
October 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Nature Mag has no shame:
Nature: “By and large, society now accepts that climate change is happening”…
Let me help you, pat, with a modest rephrasing:
Nature: “By and large, society now accepts that climate science change is happening”…
Mike says:
October 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm
“And The Royal Society issued a new statement on climate change, acknowledging that ‘the science is not settled.’”
It does not say that, you are making things up.
—-
Which leads to a quote from Shakespeare:
“Methinks the lady doth protest too much”
Is this where we’re at?
2010 and the best you can muster is an ad hominen attack? You are better than that dude.
Heres what you could of done:
Question:
Willis, I can’t see the specific use of ‘the science is not settled.’ within the Royal Society report.
Can you direct me to the page/line.
If not why have you quoted it as an element of content within the report?
Thanks Willis,
Mike.
—-
See Mike, thats what we call being both polite and credible.
Coming from your angle, seems a bit too menacing, a bit too much vested interest.
I’d even say sinister.
Cheers,
Nothing-But-Love-For-You-Brother.
Alan Clark: Just how long has he been a ‘former’ Defense Minister? (Although what we have in the White House …)
Tom–
You’ve hit it hard right square on the head!
Mike (October 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm) –
What does “the science is settled” mean to you? And do you think the revised Royal Society statement backs that?
I’ll go first. To me, “the science is settled” means that evidence for the following statements goes beyond circumstantial, to the level of scientific certainty:
The emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) by human activities is the dominant factor in the rise of global temperature, and this rise will result in significant detrimental (or even catastrophic) effects on a widespread scale, in the foreseeable future. Eliminating, or significantly reducing, said GHG emissions will avert said negative effects.
By “scientific certainty”, I mean that the evidence in hand now, for and against the proposition, is conclusive. It does not (and can not) preclude the logical possibility that further evidence might arise to contradict the proposition.
I base this interpretation of the statement on, among other things, Gore’s film, which is, I should guess, the most widely-distributed expression on the subject. NPR describes Gore as saying the science is settled at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642 , although perhaps the phrase pre-dates that.
And no, I don’t think that the revised R.S. statement supports this interpretation. It (the R.S. statement) describes significant uncertainty in attribution to GHGs vs. other causes, and significant uncertainty in projecting the future effects. Hence, not settled.
Your turn.
Please to remember
The 19th of November …
Say, wouldn’t it be a gas if The Leaker released Round 2 of the e-mails on the anniversary date?
Rhoda R says:
October 19, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Alan Clark: Just how long has he been a ‘former’ Defense Minister? (Although what we have in the White House …)
Rhoda: Paul Hillyer was actually our top soldier and then was appointed in the Liberal government of Paul Martin as Defense Minister. Old brain not working goodly now… but it wasn’t 10 years ago! I made fun of Hillyer on my Facebook status something to the effect that “its fortunate that he waited until he was out of government to go nuts”. Or did he? Now I’m starting to wonder. (cues theme from x-files)
Thomas,
In your list of things packed into the year you left out weather news. There were (and are still) lots of those. Here is something happening in October — a weather/grape/wine story. Has references to brix, TA, pH and famous grape varieties for those that care about such things.
Covey Run winemaker copes with challenges of 2010 vintage
http://www.winepressnw.com/2010/10/18/5669/covey-run-winemaker-copes-with.html?mi_email=Tri-City%20Herald_Northwest+Wine+of+the+Week
Tom? Is that you? If you’re not careful, you’ll be classified as a full blown skeptic!(You already are.) I wonder, do you carry that as a badge of honor? Or do you deny your skepticism and still consider yourself as a “lukewarmer”.
You see, it doesn’t matter to the alarmists if you’re simply asking questions that need to be asked. The simple fact that you’re asking them at all, defines you as a skeptic. Not by skeptics, btw, but by the alarmists. More importantly, do you regard this as a defining question?
It seems to me, we are at a defining point in the history of mankind. We can choose to accept the dire prognostications of others, or we can demand they prove their predictions to be reasonable and the sacrifice to be just as reasonable.
Have others before been as just as dire? Of course, we see it every day. Have others been as demanding? Yes, we’ve seen it throughout history. Has the alarmism been so comprehensive? Never! When the Kyoto pact was signed, how many signed it?
187 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change! Go here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories#Signed_and_ratified
BTW, to the rest of the world, on behalf of the U.S. (while I don’t have permission to speak for US) YW! (Thanks to a previous thread here I felt compelled to add.)
The issues raised, “just in October”, show…………………………..they show plenty.
The biggest brightest cherry on top starts in November…….Cancun!
If you thought Copenhagen was a three hanky soap opera, this one will be even better. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when our oz Foreign Minister diplomatically explains to his Chinese colleague that he really didn’t mean the rude words he said about the Chinese Premier after Copenhagen summit meeting collapsed.
HaroldW says: at 8:39 pm the science is settled
NPR describes Gore as saying . . . although perhaps the phrase pre-dates that.
I remember reading that a UK public relations firm came up with this phrase as part of a deal to help Gore and others make their position sound more solid than they could justify with facts. I did not save that statement at the time and have not been able to find it since. So my take on the statement is that Gore did not think of it himself but he was given it in a “paid for” consultation or report (?).
The core of Gore’s film happens to be based on Mann’s hockeystick Harold. You should get a hockeystick from the proxy data even if you shove the entire dataset in upsidedown and backwards. Mann’s method fundamentally “finds hockeysticks.”
A bit off topic, but it is a rather interesting October surprise.
Our esteemed host at WUWT has today published an Opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor. Its pretty much his piece from here last week on Hal Lewis, so nothing new for regulars, but a great leap for him and for respectability for the skeptic community.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1019/Climate-change-fraud-letter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history
—————
Just been looking at the comments. Who’d have thought Scott A. Mandia was a regular Christian Science Monitor reader? The Warmists are doing a snow job over there (rotten snow, of course). Perhaps it’s time to join the fray?
Hi all. James, not to worry. I’m sure my Lukewarmer tendencies will resurface in my next piece and I’ll be facing a wee bit of good-natured criticism here–possibly as soon as tomorrow…
Out of curiosity, is there anyone in Utrecht on this blog?
“the science is settled” is a catch-all phrase denoting the “tipping point” in which a Global Warming Alarmist suggests that the AGW theory is confirmed.
” The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.” (From R.S. via Mike)
Please note that supplied in the language is the inherent assumption that there will be future temperature “increases.” That assumption is based on having passed the “tipping point” whereby the hypothesis “global warming is happening” “due to man” “‘s emitting of CO2” is conditionally “proven” by the current state of science. Even invoking the precautionary principle requires this.
We are seeing the growing disconnect between those in power and those who arn’t. Those in power all hail global warming, those who arn’t will freeze to death if their electricity bills don’t give them a heart attack first.
Roger Knights, LOL! I won’t hold my breath, but that sure would be precious!
Yes. Sometimes I hanker for the good old days when WUWT had only on or two major postings a day and plenty of time for discussion. The pace steadily ramped up and since Climategate has become hectic.
Somehow during the last year the long suppressed debate has reached critical mass due to the blogosphere and much of the MSM is shifting its ground although the bastions of AGW, the BBC, ABC [Australia] the Grauniad, NY times etc. . still stoutly defend it the sense is of a punctured balloon, people are either don’t believe or aren’t interested any more. Even in Germany and Scandinavia.
This is the first time the blogosphere has really flexed its muscles and shown what it can do and the neither the MSM or the politicians like it. They see a new giant growing up and changing the accepted ways: and have no idea what to do about it. But they fear its growing might.
Thus in the UK the daily national newspaper is still an institution but a declining one and has been changing to try and arrest falling circulation. How far that has failed is exemplified by the Times of London, whose new editor went resolutely green and turned it into a comic: a grave mistake; far too many competitors do that better. And of course on line it retreated behind a paywall. Bigger mistake. Backpeddling is happening fast, the layout of the dead tree version has been revised twice in almost as many months. What joy. What plummeting circulation. But whether it can survive is now questionable. How are the mighty fallen. I doubt Mr. Murdoch likes losing money.
Likewise the politicians are very uneasy, the blogosphere gets it where the MSM does not, prying where they rather it would not, and worse, holds them and their policies to ridicule and disseminates it far more widely than the MSM. And no politician can afford to be made a fool of. And their attempts to harness it to their own ends are failing: it is too international and too vibrant to be manipulated using their traditional methods.
All in all interesting times indeed, Mr. Fuller, eh?. I am quite enjoying it all actually.
Kindest Regards
The nature of the criticism is how one receives it. It is my hope you are considering all criticism as opposed to simply dismissing the criticism as a difference of opinion. In the end, 2+2= 4. There is very little gray to play with in that regard.
I’ve quoted this before, and I’ll do it more times again, …..
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.——B. Goldwater
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the total set of the successive 90 day back up tapes from CRU found their way into the court room in Virginia?
Roger Knights says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Please to remember
The 19th of November …
Say, wouldn’t it be a gas if The Leaker released Round 2 of the e-mails on the anniversary date?
Mike:
Is evolution settled? There is scientific debate about how certain transitions occurred, but there is no scientific debate that life forms evolve over time primarily through natural selection. It is the same with climate science. We know we are causing potentially dangerous climate change. The only real question is can we change?
Then using your logic, Mike, since ipcc Climate Science is not real science but instead simply a massive Propaganda Op., is Evolution the same? Regardless, the only real question for you, Mike, is “What are you doing in your own personal life to minimize your own carbon ‘footprint’?” Since no Warmist has ever answered me, I’m betting in your case that it’s likewise not much – in other words, NIMBY – or at least nothing commensurate with your alleged certitude on the question of CAGW. Right?
“May you live in interesting times”
– ancient Chinese curse
James Sexton;
It isn’t a defining point in history that we are at. It is something else and I don’t know what to call it.
’tis often said that the victors write the history books. True. But those of use with too many decades to our credit know full well that within a generation, those with an agenda will seek to re-write them. Not to correct the distortions of the victors, but to introduce distortions of their own that support their agenda.
I think this might be the first time in history that those with an agenda attempted to write their distortions into not only the recorded past, but the future as well. We’re not talking some Nostradamus who made cryptic predictions of the future and gained a cult following despite being sued repeatedly by his clients for failure to produce results. We’re talking about a cabal of scientists who have predicted the future and are now furiously going about the task of revising the past, the present and the future to make their predictions accurate. Nostradamus would be gob smacked.
We saw in the thread about plagiarism that not only did the accuser commit a far worse crime than Wegman by orders of magnitude, but also quietly dropped the effects of CO2 on dendrochronology. The science of 1971 and 1976 rewritten in the present and used to revise a future as if it were reality and not just a prediction.
This isn’t a defining moment. It is a moment defined, and it can’t ever be wrong in the hands of those who get to write the history of the past, the present, and the future in one fell swoop.
pat says:
October 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm
…
Nature is publishing another mag entirely devoted to “climate change” “one of the greatest challenges for science and society”!
Shouldn’t that read “another nag”?
Say, here’s a great idea (IMO)! Do a round-up of the whole year, on Dec. 31. (Sort of like Dave Barry’s annual roundups.)
Perhaps subdivide it by topic. I’m not sure what the topics should be, but one of them I’d like to see is “findings that cast doubt on the models’ internals,” whether or not they cast doubt on CAWGism itself. (I.e., if a finding supports warmism, but it produces evidence that the models haven’t taken some factor into account, that’s important, because it indicates that their backcasts have been force-fitted.)
Other topics might be taken from the list of Categories.
I wrote, “Do a round-up of the whole year, on Dec. 31.”
But that would be Too Much to digest. Instead, starting on Jan. 1, print a roundup of one Category each day of that month.
No, the Royal Society has not shifted its position much on AGW. See the first book on their recommended list of introductory science reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8072485/Royal-Society-science-book-prize-theyre-binding-us-with-science.html
latitude says:
October 19, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Global warming, climate change, climate disruption…
….is so, like, yesterday
=========
Indeed it is; but, alas, there are signs that Big Green’s new, improved “tipping point” revolves around “biodiversity loss”. The UNEP (delivering increasingly scary stories since 1972, and parent of the IPCC) had spawned another “child” about ten years ago.
After Pachauri’s ‘hell no, I won’t go show’ in Korea, they’ve hopped over to Japan for the “launch” of TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) a 2 year study in the making. And you’ll never guess what they’ve found …
Of course, they knew this was coming (in fact there was an interim TEEB prepared for Copenhagen; but – not unlike the Copenhagen Diagnosis – it probably got lost in the shuffle). However, in June they had an “historic breakthrough” … and yet another “gold standard” body (“mirroring” and “modeled on” the IPCC) was born:
Move over IPCC … Here comes IPBES
Note to “plagiarism police”: it might be worth comparing content of AR4 SPM with TEEB’s equivalent 😉
To me the problem with the phrase “the science is settled” is that everyone seems to have a different opinion on what is meant by “the science”.
* I think the science is settled on “CO2 is a GHG i.e. it absorbs certain band of IR light very effectively (compared to diatomic molecules like N2 and O2)”
* I think the science is not settled on “rainfall in southern Australia will decrease 10% by 2050 due to AGW”
And there are literally 100’s of other GW topics related to the sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, the weather stations, the models, …. Some I would consider “settled” and many I would consider still in need of further discussion.
I’d love to lock Watts, Fuller, Mann, McIntyre, Hansen (and a few others, I’m sure) in a room and see what science they all agree is “settled”. And what science they all agree is “unsettled”. These are all smart, informed, involved scientists. They should all be able to look at data and theories and form intelligent, rational opinions based on the science involved. Maybe each person in the room could take turns making statements that they think everyone else would agree is either settled or unsettled. The list of what they agree on and disagree on would be fascinating. Then perhaps everyone could focus more on generating light and less on generating heat.
(And, yes, I know no science is ever “completely settled” — Newtonian mechanics was “settled” for 300 years until relativity and quantum mechanics came along. But some ideas in science are so nearly settled that they are not worth debating with out startling new evidence.)
davidmhoffer says:
October 19, 2010 at 11:13 pm
“This isn’t a defining moment. It is a moment defined, and it can’t ever be wrong in the hands of those who get to write the history of the past, the present, and the future in one fell swoop.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That may be a more apt description. Nonetheless, the stakes are high, and failure is unthinkable.
James Sexton says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Out of curiosity, is there anyone in Utrecht on this blog?
I’m born and raised in Zeist, near Utrecht, my parents still live there.
Ben Wouters
The Royal Society’s revision of its position on climate change now says both “the science is settled” and “the science is not settled.” This fact shows that sceptics within the society have had some success. But the bureaucrats in the Society continue to cling to “the science is settled.” There is a war going on there. That is healthy.
You can’t blame the old guard. They can’t help what they are doing. As Obama has explained, we are scared and our brains are hard wired to become confused when scared so that we cannot understand Obama’s appeals to science and what is generally true, good, and right. Naturally, according to Obama, the old guard will cling to people who are like themselves, old guard.
Following up on 2010 events, I see that Steve McIntyre has been listed as one of the “world’s most influential,” please see:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canadian+detailed+climategate+listed+world+most+influential/3695978/story.html
Nice! Congratulations to Steve!
When I was a young man, in the 60s, there used to be a bloke (or maybe more than one) who wandered around central London and the City, wearing a sandwich board calling upon us to ‘Repent, For The End Of The World Is Nigh!’. I expect there are still people like this around, amongst whom I think we can include Mike here. No arguments of any real substance, just repetition of the same old exhortations and warnings, resting on the very shaky basis of’ incontrovertible’ scripture.
It’s neither here nor there. It’s just kind of all over the place.
“Is quantum physics settled? ”
That is (obviously) “uncertain”.
(sorry …)
BenAW says:
October 20, 2010 at 5:02 am
James Sexton says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Out of curiosity, is there anyone in Utrecht on this blog?
I’m born and raised in Zeist, near Utrecht, my parents still live there.
Ben Wouters
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve a daughter there on studies for a few weeks.
JPeden says:
October 19, 2010 at 11:10 pm
“What are you doing in your own personal life to minimize your own carbon ‘footprint’?” Since no Warmist has ever answered me, I’m betting in your case that it’s likewise not much – in other words, NIMBY – or at least nothing commensurate with your alleged certitude on the question of CAGW. Right?”
JPeden , I have done a lot to reduce my carbon footprint…but because I like to save money. I don’t believe the AGW baloney for a minute. So I could give you a list. But I haven’t found a single Greenie Weenie to give me their list. So if you ever find out how any of the Greenie Weenies practice what they preach please let me know because I too would like to find evidence of it.
In november we will witness a Catastrophic Antropogenic Climatefear Collapse.
thomaswfuller says: October 19, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Hi all. James, not to worry. I’m sure my Lukewarmer tendencies will resurface in my next piece and I’ll be facing a wee bit of good-natured criticism here–possibly as soon as tomorrow…
Now there you go again with the eternal idealistic optimism. Wee bit my arse. ;~D
The antonym of plagiarism isn’t the truth – it is the memory hole.