Longtime WUWT reader Jimbo writes in Tips and Notes:
The following has been partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch. The differences between this list and Numberwatch are:
1) I have tried to select my sources only from peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc, or from the IPCC.
2) The list contains only research that appears to arrive at contradictory and opposite findings.
3) Items and links in brackets are just for extra information purposes though some are peer reviewed.
4) I have also added many of my own finds to the list.
* Corrections, clarifications and paired, peer reviewed suggestions appreciated.
* Some abstracts provide a link to the full version.
* I am aware of the caveats and uncertainties stated in some of the documents listed below.
“Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour.”
————-
Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding.
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? – ?]
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Gulf stream speeds up a little
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? – ? – ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Sahel may get more or less rain
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer [? – ?]
—END—
OK, I’ll grant you that the climate scientists may have got:
Amazon dry season, Avalanches, Bird migrations, Boreal forest fires, Chinese locusts swarms, Columbia spotted frogs decline, Coral island atolls, Earth’s rotation, East African rain, Great Lakes snow, Gulf stream speed, Indian monsoons, Indian rice yields, Latin American forests, Leaf area index, Malaria; North Atlantic – cod, cyclones & saltiness; Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, Plant methane emissions, Plants moving uphill, Sahel rain, San Francisco fog, Sea level rise, Soil moisture, Squid size, the climatic effects of Stone age hunters, Swiss mountain debris, UK floods & droughts, Wind speed, and Winter temperatures
but what else have the climate scientists ever
done for usgot wrong?Let us not forget what modern technology has done. Computers, calculators and such. Miraculous tools if only we knew how to use them.
The first reliable instant communication was by electric telegraph. In that far off world of long ago it took people a long time to learn how to use it effectually.
Hence, in the early days: ” And down the wire the message came, he is no better, he is now worse, he is much the same”
The simple fact is until we learn how to use these wonderful toys properly we shall remain as ignorant as we were before: despite vocal protests to the contrary.
Kindest Regards
Thanks for that, it is always useful to have something like this to hand when some Zealot trots out an extreme alarmist position during a debate.
Illustrates pretty well that after decades of research and shedloads of funding they still have no clue.
+1 -1 = 0
The first two I looked at are not contradictory. The two on the columbia spotted frog don’t contradict.One talks about a decline once warming eliminates the moist habitat, the other says that up until the habitat becomes unsuitable due to warming, there is a benefit from the milder winters. In fact, the second paper sums up the two positions very nicely:
“More generally, amphibians and other ectotherms inhabiting alpine or boreal habitats at or near their thermal ecological limits may benefit from the milder winters provided by a warming climate as long as suitable habitats remain intact.”
Have you actually vetted this list, or is this just an exercise in self-flagellation?
A good example of science at its most robust and settled!
With certainty like this, I would hate to see what science may come up with if it was not robust and/or not settled.
Henry, you’ve got to be kidding if you can’t smell the stench of nonsense that billows from this collection…
Henry Holmes says: April 3, 2011 at 1:45 am
I’ve no doubt Jimbo can reply for himself.
But isn’t the point that, armed with a nice computer, healthy funding from the taxpayer and a little imagination, you can come up with “scenarios” showing anything you please?
Pepper liberally with “might” and “could” and “it is feared” and “possibly” and you have a paper ripe for publication in “Nature”, “Science”, “Scientific American” and all the others.
Whole careers have been built on less.
reminds me of an old world war 2 story about how communicatios can be distorted.
Generated message was “Send reinforcements, we are going to advance” After several repetitions the message turned into ” send three and four pence, we are going to a dance”
Henry Holmes
Columbia spotted frogs. I’ll update and correct accordingly. The list I have made will decline and thrive at the same time just as we will get warmer and colder winters. ;O)
——————————
One correction:
North Atlantic cod to decline / North Sea cod decline.
I am sure there will be other corrections as I am sure there will be additions in the future such as this:
Co2 rise more precipitation?
Co2 cut more precipitation – short term?
I will continue with the list as I find them and make corrections accordingly.
Thanks.
What I would like to know from Warmists is what would falsify the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
——————————————–
Anthony,
I think there is a need to have on your Resources page a section called Conflicting Findings which is made up of only contradictory and opposite findings from scientists. This, I believe, does more than anything else to expose this for what it is.
“Hence, in the early days: ” And down the wire the message came, he is no better, he is now worse, he is much the same””
Just in the interests of accuracy, the misquote above appears to be taken from some lines supposedly written by Alfred Austin (although no-one seems to be able to name the poem). It is said to have been written about the Prince of Wales’ illness. The version generally given is:
“O’er the wires the electric message came: he is no better, he is much the same.”
OK, I’m a pedant.
Just look at what part the models have played in many of these projections / scenarios / predictions / forecasts.
Excellent work, Jimbo. No wonder the alarmist side always loses debates.
This is rather brilliant. Lots of useful citations to use in the future.
@Henry Holmes
I would agree that the Frog papers don’t directly disagree, they are talking about different local effects in different locations in Montana.
To me the two papers effectively, collectively, say that the change in snow pack will be negative for amphibians in low lying areas who usually benef from snow pack melt water, yet positive for amphibians in mountain regions with less snow in shorter winters.
The “as long as suitable habitats remain intact.” boilerplate is pretty meaningless though isn’t it?
If the numbers of a wee beasty are going to be used as a proxy for showing a bad thing is happening, should we allow choosing a specfic area and generalising without justification? The first paper got this headline
Climate link to amphibian decline
I had a look but I couldn’t find an example of a contemporary headline for the second benefit effect. But it could have existed and said
“Climate link to amphibian increase”
which would have been equally justifiable using the same logic.
I think this blame list exercise is impressive and useful, although it is worth while thinking about each example and seeing how “fair” the headlines are contrasted. Also useful to think about how the headlines are/were used in the media. I would bet most of the “benefit” stories above had less coverage than the negative effect climate stories.
The funny thing about Albert Einstein is that any one can quote him to further their own particular purpose or agenda, so too can science be used in this way but ultimately there can only be one falsehood in taking an inherently contradictory position in science.
This quote by George Orwell encapsulates the known difficulty of the contradictory and absurd assumptions that even Albert Einstein was faced with.
“Einstein is an analytical mathematician seeking to give a physical interpretation to the conclusions of his mathematical process. In this he is hampered by a load of contradictory and absurd assumptions of the school that he follows, which throws him into all manner of difficulty. Einstein has such a faculty for embracing both sides of a contradiction that one would have to be of the same frame of mind to follow his thought, it is so peculiarly his own. The whole Relativity theory is as easy to follow as the path of a bat in the air at night. ”
“Climate Change” being an antonym is very appropriate (don’t you think?) considering that contradictory and absurd assumptions including faulty predictions play a major part in its own particular purpose and agenda.
It is worthwile noting that the IPCC cannot produce its publications for governments without relying on NON-peer reviewed publications. Yet ‘Warmists’ insist that sceptics only rely on peer reviewed evidence!!!
——————
InterAcademy Council committee Quotes from those working at the IPCC.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
H/t Nofrakkingconsensus
Based partly on the models it’s much worse than we thought!
Amazon drought may be caused by cleaner air
Antarctica ice growth not linked to ozone
Arctic sea ice may not be in death spiral
Fisheries in Australia to thrive? or maybe not.
Great Barrier Reef boomed after bleaching
Natural disasters have not been increasing
Worldwide methane concentrations flattening?
Water scarcity has triggered peace treaties
[See also Geographical perspectives]
Henry Holmes says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:45 am
The first two I looked at are not contradictory….”
Two out of thirty three aren’t as contradictory as supposed? That’s better proof of global warming than the actual computer model prognostications!!!!!
As long as you use words like may, might, should, could, etc…
…you can literally publish anything
Our research shows that one day the moon (may, might, should, could) crash into the earth………
…and pigs might fly
What your list proves, without any doubt, is that the most robust aspect of climate science is it funding levels. None of the contradictory “science” would have been possible without massive infusions of Climate Ca$h (aka your tax dollars) into the government/academic climate science machine.
This is an invaluable list. From the initial pro-AGW’ers replying here you can already tell they don’t want this out there. This is pretty devastating for them. I would nail this list posting for posterity (pending corrections deletions etc). I am sure there could be a very strong media interest in this for articles. Its pretty devastating on the pro-AGW and the media and science journals that support it.
Recommend pasting this list and posting it worldwide. It could be devastating!
This post is a great example of the type of material that should be available in some part of the site (Resources Page?) for easy reference when we are debating the warmers.
As the World Climate Report has astutely noticed:
As far as words and terms cou’d go.
All which he understood by rote,
And, as occasion serv’d, would quote;
No matter whether right or wrong,
They might be either said or sung.
His notions fitted things so well,
That which was which he could not tell;
But oftentimes mistook th’ one
For th’ other, as great clerks have done.
He could reduce all things to acts,
And knew their natures by abstracts;
Weapons Of Mass Prediction.
Global warming seems to be making my hair turn gray as well. I know this finding is not ‘peer reviewed’, but trust me, it’s turning gray. So feel free to add that to the list if you want.
A man far wiser than me once said,
“Anything can be proven scientifically if you simply discard enough of the evidence to the contrary.”
I believe you’ll find quite a consensus on that today.
Reminds me of the old “warmlist” at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I must admit that when I first read ‘Columbia spotted frogs decline’ I thought ‘It’s amazing what you can see from a space shuttle window.’
Excellent list, Jimbo.
We are indeed doomed.
And, of course, simultaneously not-doomed.
Henry Holmes says: at 1:45 am
. . . is this just an exercise in self-flagellation?
Say what? That makes no sense. Please pull on your horse hair shirt and do your penance.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/thomas_becket.htm
I’d say his list shows that there is at least a modicum of uncertainty. 😉
Quote from the first paragraph of the IPCC document Cited above:
“Mitigation policies are developed in response to concerns about the risk of climate change impacts. However, deciding on a proper reaction to these concerns means dealing with uncertainties. Risk refers to cases for which the probability of outcomes and its consequences can be ascertained through well-established theories with reliable, complete data, while uncertainty refers to situations in which the appropriate data may be fragmentary or unavailable. Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour. The human dimensions of uncertainty, especially coordination and strategic behaviour issues, constitute a major part of the uncertainties related to climate change mitigation ”
That is “legalese” at its finest. A great, long, circuitous way of saying “determine your actions, even though you don’t know why”. Further condensation: “you are going to screw up”. This is an organization bloated by its own self-importance to the point that it really has no clue of what it’s on about.
In the clamour to provedisprove, eager researchers first of all have to fugure out, from the welter of uncertainty, exactly what it is they are trying to prove. Hence the list above.
Looks like an expanded list subliminally taken from “The 10 Commandments”.
Jimbo forgot
Global warmists go bonkers over climate change.
Global warmists go bonkers over lack of climate change.
Climate Change needs to be called Prediction Change.
Sparks says:
April 3, 2011 at 4:15 am
Great quote from Orwell.
Having been exposed in depth to the theories of Gravitation and Sub Atomic particles, I’m continually astonished at how current science continues to ignore the original discussions of Space Time Resonances as the source of particles. Much of the mystery of the building blocks dissipates, much like a critically damped wave, when physics stops taking the stand that there are Particles and Waves, as if they were exclusive beasts.
The result of that is that Einstein still has the best run at describing our universe. There will be additions, maybe even real corrections to his physics, but I don’t see it being totally overturned – unlike the pseudo-science being dished up under the guise of “Climate Science.”
Climate Change papers are lagging indicators at best. The good ones can tell you what happened.
Jimbo? Let us know if you ever come across a pair of papers that can tell us whether we are coming or going. You seem to have found plenty that tell us we are coming and going. ;o)
Henry Holmes says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:45 am
“The two on the columbia spotted frog don’t contradict.One talks about a decline once warming eliminates the moist habitat, the other says that up until the habitat becomes unsuitable due to warming, there is a benefit from the milder winters…”
Apart from the whole thing being just plain stupid – look at the geographic range of this species to see the range of its tolerances – it is particularly stupid to suggest that frogs in that range will benefit from “milder winters” when they are hibernating through them. Would they benefit from shorter winters? The ones now living where there are shorter winters presumably do.
Ever since the fungus introduced by either the pet trade, returning ecotourists, and definitely researchers traveling between areas, amphibians have been a popular doomsday poster child. But not the Columbia spotted frog, which is uneffected by that fungus. So I guess the enterprising herptologists who live getting paid to play with their childhood pets needed to bring in the planetary fever to keep their (wasted) research funds flowing.
That said, if the climate ever changes enough to dry up Columbia spotted frog breeding and wintering ponds – look where they live – frogs will be our last concern.
A very useful compilation. Fully displays the erroneous idea that very specific events in space and time can be predicted in a dynamical system (i.e. the climate) that exhibits deterministic spatio-temporal chaos, and especially one that is undergoing significant external forcing (i.e 40% increase in CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years.)
The Global Climate Models are woefully inadequate at given specifics (as well they should be for that is not their purpose), and their inadequacy is well displayed when someone tries to take a long-term trend which they may indicate and fit it into a specific time and place. These is even further complicated when the full nature of all feedbacks (positive and negative) are not fully understood.
I think everyone (“warmist” and skeptic alike) should review lists such as the one Jimbo has compiled here to remind them of the nature of climate and the limitations of the models, and hence, the level of uncertainty and limitations in trying to find shorter-term specific effects in a dynamical system exhibiting spatio-temporal chaos should always be addressed. These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.
To Jimbo and Henry Holmes
So anyway, I read both when the list was posted at Steve’s,
Jimbo, you can keep it in the list. From each study, respectively.
“In this study, we found fewer amphibian species per hydrated pond than in 1992–1993, further suggesting that amphibians have been challenged by the environmental conditions of the past 16 years.”
And,
“We documented an increase in survival and breeding probability as severity of winter decreased.”
Jimbo, when your list grows to this size and larger, it may be helpful to document why they are contradictory. If this gains much traction, you’ll be challenged more and more.
Cheers,
James
One to add? (No, not really)
http://dereksorensen.com/?p=80
You like the ice I see. Let us wait and sea. Arctic ice concentration is looking bad. Antarctica has had a bad record since 1979.
The problem with climate science funding is that it is churning out uselsess results. How can governments make decisions based on contradictory nonsense? After the last few brutal winters the British Government had asked its chief scientific advisor whether there had been a regime shift in the climate. How silly of the UK government to ask such silly questions.
Please don’t remind me that a warmer climate causes more snow. Please do not remind me that global warming causes colder and snowier NH winters. Please don’t remind me that Antarctica is just ‘average’, ‘declining ice extent’, ‘declining mass balance’.
R. Gates says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
….”These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.”
===========
Are you suggesting that climate stasis is an achievable goal, which should be pursued?
What I think is most telling that it is all BS is that the crazed climate hippies, or the man-did-it and it must then become catastrophic climate change, don’t know which climate they want to go back to, or explain why as in what was so good with that historic superior ulterior one year climate, blink of the eye in an 12.7 billion year and counting drama, instance.
What was so great with the climate in 1788? Or as IPCC would have it in 1988?
Why would the numb nuts want to go back to “acid” rain and mass starvation and hundreds of tornadoes and crashing real estate market . . .
The biggest parody, though, has to be the fact the crazed climate hippies actually can’t say if the weather, and therefor the climate, will become better if the world actually reduces all the CO2 emissions by the amount they say is a must, or else, or what actually is going to get saved if their targeted reduction in CO2 levels is reached.
Will we get fewer hurricanes and tornadoes?
Will Africa get more rain?
Will there be fewer forest, grass, and bush fires?
Will farmers still be abel to harvest 2-4 times per year? (In 1988 farmers weren’t able to do that in general.)
Will the people of South America, Central America, India, China, Indonesia and Africa still become a prosperous industrialized peoples?
Will the crazed climate hippies of the future, aka the greens, still be an angry bunch lefties that want the world to become a “better” place?
u.k.(us) says:
April 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm
R. Gates says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
….”These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.”
===========
Are you suggesting that climate stasis is an achievable goal, which should be pursued?
___
I currently am not an advocate of any national or international program, taxation, or geoengineering project to try and bring about climate “stasis”. Such efforts, especially geoengineering I would actually be in strong opposition to as far too little is known about how such efforts might interact with a system such as climate that exists in spatio-temporal chaos (i.e. any attempted “cures” might actually end up causing more damage than good).
I currently am approaching the issue of AGW from a purely scientific viewpoint (i.e. is it happening, why is it happening, how is it happening, to what level, how fast, etc.). There may come a time when I move toward some kind of activism as required, however, I think volunteer personal responsibility for care of the ecosystem of the earth based on education is far more meaningful and likely to succeed such that in my private life, I make the free individual choice to live as “green” as possible for both economic reasons and personal ones, but would strongly resent the further intrusion into my life by being forced to go green by federal or international agencies.
Jimbo says:
April 3, 2011 at 3:30 pm
R. Gates says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
…………..
These limitations do not, however, in any way invalidate the general direction of longer-term trends indicated in GCM’s, such as year-to-year sea ice decline, general global glacial decline, polar amplification of warming, etc.
You like the ice I see. Let us wait and sea. Arctic ice concentration is looking bad. Antarctica has had a bad record since 1979.
The problem with climate science funding is that it is churning out uselsess results. How can governments make decisions based on contradictory nonsense? After the last few brutal winters the British Government had asked its chief scientific advisor whether there had been a regime shift in the climate. How silly of the UK government to ask such silly questions.
Please don’t remind me that a warmer climate causes more snow. Please do not remind me that global warming causes colder and snowier NH winters. Please don’t remind me that Antarctica is just ‘average’, ‘declining ice extent’, ‘declining mass balance’.
_____
Jimbo, as far as warmer temps leading to great snowfall accumulation…this is simply the ice-core record. I will never refrain from speaking as to what the data tell us, especially when there are strong physics supporting the data. Skeptics and warmists alike would do themselves a great deal of good by not trying to see things in black and white, and realize (as my prior post indicates) that a dynamical system existing in spatio-temporal chaos and undergoing change from outside forcing is very hard to predict in the short-term, but trends in such a system can far easier than the weather to predict in the long-term. One such trend is that Arctic sea ice (and eventually Antarctic sea ice) will decline as the climate warms and more external forcing occurs. Polar amplification of the warming is another such trend. The problem arises when warmists or skeptics jump on small wiggles up or down in such trends and try to extrapolate further. When the big drop in 2007’s arctic sea ice occurred, a few “warmists” were predicting an ice-free arctic by 2013. They were of course wrong as they forgot they were dealing with spatio-temporal chaos. So too, when the Arctic sea ice made some very modest recovery in 2008-2009, some skeptics were calling for the reversal of the longer-term downtrend. They were also of course wrong as they too forgot they were dealing with a system existing in spatio-temporal chaos. Neither of these incorrect predictions invalidated the longer-term trend of reduced Arctic sea ice caused by a net increase in energy entering the arctic from both ocean and atmosphere over past several decades.
This post is brilliant! Even if there are a few mistakes in which findings do not actually contradict each other, the number of examples listed still makes the point. Would someone please send this list to the House, Senate, and White House?
I can see the mistake you’ve made. Glaringly obvious really. you’ve used Normal mathematics not post-normal mathematics in your equations. As any child in any British primary School can tell you, in post-normal mathematics 2 + 2 = 5
You have to remember that, as pointed out by Dr. Pangloss, we live in the best of all possible worlds, so any change would detract from it.
Up is the new down… or is it down is the new up or is sideways the new… oh wait….
As some guy said… lies, damn lies and statistics… well we could add climate models to the list
Please add:
More hurricanes due to AGW
Less hurricanes due to AGW.
Oh, you Philistines, you just don’t understand believing in impossible things!! If you really want to believe you can. Truth, science, whatever, are irrelevant.
****
Alice laughed, “There’s no use trying,” she said, “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
****
So…..(to mix metaphors) if you close your eyes and clap your hands and believe really, really hard, Tinkerbelle will live! And, therefore, so will your funding.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Reminds me of a conversation I had here a few weeks back, regarding food production. I was told by the same person that we would suffer food shortages if the climate warmed, and also that we would suffer food shortages if the climate cooled, too. It seems that ANY change in climate spells our doom.
I would add my name to those suggesting have such a list in a prominent place. It would be useful for reference and would become more definitive over time as people criticise/correct information and further examples are added.
Miket
I picked, at random, the “North Atlantic cod to decline/thrive” pair. Contrary to Jimbo’s claim, the two papers agree. These quotes are taken directly from the provided links:
I think we have identified a new element: warmsicoldium. It is located on the periodic table right next to upsidaisium that was discovered by Moose and Squirrel.
Jon Thaler says:
April 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm
You’re already about 35 hrs late on this, as Jimbo corrected this here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/#comment-634977
On another note, I wonder how many people here question your “at random” comment…especially considering that this finding was already noted on Steven Goddard’s blog. However, I’ll refrain from speculating on the motives of other people at this point. The point is, this was already noted by Jimbo here before it was brought up by someone here (though someone at Goddard’s site did note it first).
-Scott
The GCM’s are woefully inaccurate.
The GCM’s are perfectly robust
addendum.
Over 100 years, GCM’s of the arctic region are even more woefully inadequate and even more adequately robust
Congratulations Anthony,
(sarc)
You have found a further example of the close connection between climate science and quantum mechanics.
Like with Schroedingers cat, the effects are both there and not, or are there and their opposite is also there at the same time, depending on the eye of the beholder.
Another example of that close link between those sciences in teleconnecting larch trees. No explainable mechanism for that action at a distance, exactly like in quantum entanglement.
(/sarc)
I just hope these things don’t give quantum mechanics a bad name.
Sic et Non
Things may well get a whole lot worse, with lesser than before;
but, on the other hand, we say, much better, maybe more.
The planet’s warmth or coolth could sway, but awfully, we fear;
and Armageddon might be nigh, or maybe not so near.
Whatever happens to the seas—they’ll surely rise or fall—
We climate scientists declare, “Our models forecast all!”
It has been said that “Money is the root of all evil.” I think it’s time to say it again, and again, and again, and…
Now let me get this straight. Congress is going to close down this country because they can’t agree on a few trillion $ worth of budget cuts. Hummm… OK! Close it down! Close it down for a full year! Let’s see what the impact is of a little Voter withholding on the Global Temperature of the !@#$@@#$ world. Worth a try, right? I mean just think of all the CO2 we wouldn’t have if we shut everything down for just 365.24756 days.
I’ll be back! Give me till March 2012. I intend to produce a yearly list of AGW nonsense [adjusted after corrections and additions]. This list is marque I.