This week’s sign of the non-apocalypse (Vol. 1, No. 2)

The Climategate saga continues to unfold. The latest chapter involves the apparent cover-up by Phil Jones of the beleaguered Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University and a Chinese-American colleague, Wei-Chyung Wang, about the significant movement of weather stations in China. These are weather stations whose records are a crucial piece of the data demonstrating rapidly rising temperatures — and their movement, perhaps from rural areas to urban centers, could in part undermine the conventional wisdom about why the Earth warmed in the late 20th century.

Ronald Bailey at Reason Magazine has one of the best summaries of this particular episode — which, like much of the Climategate story, has depended on yeoman’s work by British journalists while most of their American colleagues pooh-pooh it. (Example: Search for “Wei-Chyung Wang” on Google News and you get 55 results and just under 300 articles, or less than 10 percent of the hits generated for “Punxsutawney Phil.”)

The story centers on a 1990 study that Jones, Wang and other colleagues published in Nature. The study’s authors argued that temperature records from rural parts of Russia, Australia and China showed that the heating effect of cities was minimal compared to warming by greenhouse gases. This has been one key point of contention between true believers and skeptics.

As London’s Guardian newspaper reports, skeptics asked to see the locations of the 84 Chinese weather stations used in the study:

But when Jones turned down [the] requests…arguing that it would be “unduly burdensome”, they concluded that he was covering up the error.

And when, in 2007, Jones finally released what location data he had, British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan accused Jones and Wang of fraud.

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: “The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres”; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that “there were ‘few if any changes’ to locations is a fabrication”. He demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data.

Now, Jones and Wang say the data are lost — a now-familiar admission by some of the world’s biggest proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW). The Guardian further reports:

In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.

This does not flatly contradict Jones’s 1990 paper. The timeframe for the new analysis is different. But it raises serious new questions about one of the most widely referenced papers on global warming, and about the IPCC’s reliance on its conclusions.

The Guardian, which has long been one of AGW’s biggest media cheerleaders, tries to play down the revelation, citing another U.K. climate scientist who keeps up the party line about urban warming being a minimal factor. Bailey counters that with this reporting:

In an email to University of Alabama [in Huntsville] climatologist John Christy I asked, “Is there a possibility that the teams that compile temperature data could all be making the same set of errors which would result in them finding similar (and perhaps) spurious trends?” Christy replied that he believed this was possible and cited some recent work he had done on temperature trends in East Africa as evidence. In that article he found that using both the maximum and minimum temperature rather than the mean temperature (TMean) used by the three official data sets gives a better indication of actual temperature trends in the region.

Christy found that the maximum temperature (TMax) trend has been essentially zero since 1900 while the minimum temperature (TMin) trend has been increasing. In his email to me, Christy explained, “As it turns out, TMin warms significantly due to factors other than the greenhouse effect, so TMean, because it is affected by TMin, is a poor proxy for understanding the greenhouse effect of ‘global warming’.” Or as his journal article puts it, “There appears to be little change in East Africa’s TMax, and if TMax is a suitable proxy for climate changes affecting the deep atmosphere, there has been little impact in the past half-century.” So if Christy’s analysis is correct, much of the global warming in East Africa reported by the three official data sets is exaggerated. Christy has found similar effects on temperature trend reporting for other regions of the world.

What could be increasing minimum temperatures? Christy’s study suggests that the turbulence and thus temperatures in the lower levels of the atmophere are…

…highly dependent on local land use and perhaps locally produced aerosols, the significant human development of the surface may be responsible for the rising TMin while having little impact on TMax in East Africa.

Along with recent revelations about the faulty “science” used to predict human-induced doom for Himalayan glaciers, this story indicates that the “consensus” about AGW rests in part on sand rather than rock.

Yes, human activities would still be contributing to changes in the climate. But if Christy is right, these activities might not be limited at all by the caps on carbon dioxide emissions which the AGW crowd promotes.

In such complex scientific work, the bad science cannot simply be dismissed as having no effect on the conclusion. We need a full accounting of which work, studies and conclusions are reliable, and which ones aren’t.

47 comments Add your comment

Horrible Horrace

February 3rd, 2010
10:59 am

If this UN, Obama, Goron, incompetent bums climategate shell game werent so funny it would be sad. Love seeing the windbags being exposed for the frauds “we” knew they were.



February 3rd, 2010
11:31 am

Okay. So you found reason to suspect a few sources of data points in worldwide efforts to determine the effects of man-made pollutants, etc., on global weather. I assume you have also read, processed and analyzed the huge amount of other data points upon which the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are basing their conclusions that global warming is “anthropogenic.”

If you are commenting on this immense, multi-discipline research effort based on but a few exceptions, you had better have made yourself an expert in the entire field. Anything less would be shameless and indecent–risking our children’s and descendants’ futures for the sake of supporting your biased opinion, and your readership.

If you are wrong, Jay Bookman is right–those coming after us will curse us–in particular, you and other demi-experts who helped lead us into what could prove to be a cataclysmic Armageddon. You have investigated this matter thoroughly, right? You have made yourself an expert on the subject before you dared make the first comment, right?

They say that where there’s smoke there’s fire. From what I’m reading, there’s already an inferno burning in our midst. This is coming from those who have made it their life’s work to know these things. Some are worried that it might already be too late, the tipping point may have already been passed.

Yet, there you sit, smugly prosecuting your ignorance and arrogance. For the sake of readership! Could you give your readers, just this once, some evidence that you have taken the time and effort to ingest at a least a substantial portion of the literature available? With so much at stake, nothing less will do.

Otherwise, shame on you and anyone who believes you.


February 3rd, 2010
11:32 am

Humans these days are funny if not pathetic. It used to be the case that if someone developed more efficient technology (or simply tried to) he was hailed to be a vissionary. Nowadays, he’s slammed as part of a liberal conspiracy. Someone needs to explain to me when trying to develop better and more efficient technology became a bad thing.

If he was alive today, Thomas Edison would be part of this “conspiracy”. I can just see the theorists telling him that since global warming is a hoax, we don’t need his fancy electric “lightbulb” thingy.

Horrible Horrace

February 3rd, 2010
11:41 am

“suspect a few sources of data points”

Wally wally wally…its more than a few data points. Its to the point now where everyone is wondering from which rock these pseudo-scientists will next emerge.

Butt since you are such a warmer perhaps giving up your automobile would be your next logical step.


February 3rd, 2010
12:30 pm

If the sea-level does rise, thank God for the legs he gave us so we can walk away, uphill.

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
“The Ethics of Greed”


February 3rd, 2010
12:34 pm

Kyle and others, let’s just keep on polluting and let our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. suffer the consequences and pay the bill. Why should we do anything to clean up our act. After all we are Americans and are entitled to squander the world’s natural resources and pollute the atmosphere all we want. Right, Kyle?

Chris Broe

February 3rd, 2010
1:04 pm

At some point Kyle is going to blame the high temperatures for global warming: “The dumbells sounding the alarm bells about global warming have covered up the fact that it may indeed be the higher regional and strategic temperatures in the upper and lower quadrants of the atmospheric layers that account solely for the global warming trends and this fact alone constitutes irrepukeable proof that it’s all a bunch of government-cheese-covered nanny state tacos, IF I may be so data-specific.”



February 3rd, 2010
1:11 pm

retiredds: Your strawman arguments are juvenile even by strawman standards. I know of no serious AGW “denier” who is advocating that we “keep on polluting.” We “deniers” are not anti-climate. I personally believe that we are to be good stewards of all that God has given us–including the environment.

Denying that man has done (or will do) very much to affect the global climate does not mean that I’m a polluter. (In fact, it doesn’t matter whether I “deny” it or not. What matters is the truth.)


February 3rd, 2010
1:17 pm

Also, remember the weather and the forecasts here last week?

Here in Northeast Georgia, winter storm watches and warnings were issued. Forecasters predicted several inches of snow and a significant amount of ice. However, the predictions fell far short of what actually occurred.

The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning for Friday evening (1/29/2010) and well into Saturday. “Freezing rain, sleet and snow is expected to hit North Georgia tonight and continue into Saturday. A line north from Ellijay to Helen could see seven to nine inches of snow. Ice accumulations there could reach three-quarters of an inch,” was the forecast as late as 11 p.m. Friday evening.

By Saturday evening, there was very little snow on the ground in the whole state of Georgia. In North Hall County where I live (within the warning area), there was no snow and hardly any ice. Even the temperature forecast I saw Saturday morning for the rest of the day was very inaccurate. According to the weather report, the temperatures were supposed to be well below freezing by sundown. As of 10 p.m., according to the Weather Channel’s website, our temperature was 34 degrees.

Now, I don’t mind an inaccurate forecast. I’m very used to them, especially in the winter in this area. I’m sure it happens all over the U.S. and the world everyday. Even with all of our advanced technology, weather forecasting is a very tricky business.

However, the missed forecast with this recent weather event highlights the kind of folly that is behind all of the doom and gloom predictions coming from Al Gore’s disciples. Even people who know what they are talking about have a difficult time predicting accurately the local weather just days, and sometimes even hours, in advance—yet the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) community would have us drastically change our energy policy and enact crippling emission controls based on their dire predictions about the global climate that are decades and sometimes centuries in advance.

Horrible Horrace

February 3rd, 2010
1:22 pm


February 3rd, 2010
12:34 pm

Agreed…and if you knew anything about which you speak you wouldnt have voted for Mr Personality.


February 3rd, 2010
1:38 pm

Horrible Horace, enjoy your delusions while you can.

Aren’t you dismayed that the Christian majority West has produced so many inept and corrupt “pseudo-scientists”? If you’re right, less than one scientist in ten is really a scientist. What a testament to a part of the world where it is difficult to walk down a street in any city or town without passing through the shadow of a church steeple. With this many churches, blaming our woes on taking prayer out of schools is evidence of the complete route of the dominant religion of the West.

Rather than expect me to be the only one responsible for reversing course, why don’t you write letters to your representatives urging them to create a public transportation system that just might get us all out of our inefficient, single passenger conveyances.

I mean.
You know.
Just on the minute chance, horror of horrors, you might be wrong.

Mr. Xyz

February 3rd, 2010
2:16 pm

“We’ve told so many lies, young scientists are totally confused”
(a video spoof of climate science)

Horrible Horrace

February 3rd, 2010
2:19 pm

Dont wet yourself Wally…it will be alright.


February 3rd, 2010
2:22 pm

this is a classic case of science vs. religion (as in, the church of Al Gore). of course the climate is changing. the question is; WHY? and the other question WHY are people manipulating/altering data? this is not different than the “war on drugs” or the “war on terrorism”. there are those who profit from said wars. this vested interest leads them to champion the cause with the fervor of a zealot. the “war on climate” change has become a religious Crusade, and as with all dogma, just follow the money and see where it leads. this isn’t about global warming or climate change, it’s about greed.

Hot potato

February 3rd, 2010
2:42 pm

Calm down Wally. This old earth has been here millions of years and has gone through multiple changes. We are not that important.


February 3rd, 2010
2:44 pm

Allow me to bust the bubble people. Those of you weighing in with your opinions have spent zero time doing any research into global warming, you’ve read zero papers on global warming that was published by any scientist and most of you prorobly don’t have the slightest clue as to what global warming is. Yet you think you’ve nailed down this great conspiracy and are ready to declare the whole thing a hoax.

Get back to me when your opinion is actually relevant. Until then you might want to consider not discounting the people that have done the aforementioned research.

(1000 years ago the people that thought the world was round or not the center of the universe were all part of a consipracy too)


February 3rd, 2010
2:47 pm

Who exactly is supposed to decide what is good and bad science? Someone like yourself, who acts like he doesn’t know what the scientific method is all about. OR the political minders that inhabited the Bush administration? Or scientists who actually know what they are talking about?

When you were a write at the WSJ, did you inform your readers about the imp[ending financial implosion, or did you not see it coming, and help send your readers down the financial disaster tube?

Why should anyone believe anything you write? Where is your credibility?


February 3rd, 2010
2:59 pm

Wally – 11:31 am – Well said.

Some of these “posters” think “Climategate” is some grand
left-wing conspiracy.
It’s a desparate attempt to link Obama to a discrepancy in
university research.
I told Kyle a couple of months ago that nothing would come of this.
Although it’s still news in the UK, it hasn’t been reported here in the
US at any length, except on news websites.


February 3rd, 2010
3:02 pm

Hey Wally, did you know that we have had global warming since that last ice age? You know what happens after global warming? Global cooling then another ice age… then guess what happens next? Global warming… loser! This has happened many times in history, idiot!


February 3rd, 2010
3:04 pm


Just wondering. Do you also believe Piltdown man means evolution is not true?


February 3rd, 2010
3:05 pm

- I commend Kyle on doing some science reporting,
but most of the research in climatology is work involving
concurrent efforts. A single scandal will not affect the


February 3rd, 2010
3:08 pm

RJ, it’s not about ‘conspiracy theories’. answer the question: who benefits most from saving the world? blind faith is blind faith, regardless of which side you’re on. or, as Hot Potato’s research suggests; the world has been here for billions of years and will likely continue for billions more. as my mentore George Carlin observed when discussing the “save the planet” crowd; “…the planet is fine. the people are f***ed.” this is no different than the run-up to the Iraq War; when Dick Chenney didn’t get the “intel” he wanted, he fudged the data. whether it’s a financial interest, or Messiahanic arrogance, the Al Gore’s of the world are fudging the data.

Intown Lib

February 3rd, 2010
3:15 pm

I’m glad the AJC hired a “conservative” columnist. But, do you also have to write stupid articles. You can focus on real stories and provide good analysis or at least analysis that makes people think. But, so far, most of your work for AJC has beena disappointment. Can’t you be more like Bill Bennett or David Brooks? Even if you were like one of the Kristols — you could have a point of view worth thinking about even if it’s plain wrong.

Kyle Wingfield

February 3rd, 2010
3:33 pm

neo-Carlinist asks some good questions. I’ll add another one, for those who are most worried about global warming: What would it take for you to decide that the “consensus” wasn’t right after all?

If you don’t have an answer to that question, you aren’t interested in science.

My point all along has been that the most important issues here aren’t settled — and that means they aren’t settled in the skeptics’ favor, either.

No one serious about climate science questions whether the stories I’ve relayed here are important. It’s all a matter of magnitude: How important are they? That question hinges in part on: How many more of these stories are there? There are reports that close to two dozen of the studies cited in the IPCC’s latest report were non-peer-reviewed papers by a pressure group, the WWF. When you add up all of it — with the possibility that there are more mistakes to be caught — how does that affect the received wisdom?

Similarly, even if you think that we can stop global warming, the danger of global warming has always been a question of magnitude. How bad will it be? What sort of damage comes from which amount of warming? And this is the importance of the creeping questions about the IPCC’s work. These errors might not call the basic theory of AGW into question — but they very well might lessen the case that it will result in catastrophic damage, the kind of damage worth reordering our economies and societies to avoid.

These are questions we have to ask. Because, to borrow from Wally, “when there’s smoke, there’s fire.”


February 3rd, 2010
3:50 pm

Kyle, good points but you need to ask more: What are the consequences of doing nothing and being wrong? What are the consequences of doing something about it and being wrong? Which of those is worse?

The problem is that if we later find that the “magnitude” is too great, we’re going to wish we did something sooner. It’s like the government saying they should have monitored Wall Street after the economy collapsed.


February 3rd, 2010
3:57 pm

Yes, let’s just forget about the thousands of climatologists who recognize the problem of climate change. Conservatives have nothing but contempt for science. They are truly pathetic.

Kyle Wingfield

February 3rd, 2010
4:08 pm

Those thousands of climatologists aren’t the monolith you and others make them out to be, chris.

The problem with your question, Richard, is that you make it out as if all we’d be doing is buying a little insurance policy. What we’re being asked to do with policies like cap and trade is the equivalent of insuring against the loss of a car by buying 10 extra cars.

I have also said all along that I agree with people like Bjorn Lomborg — who is neither a “denier” nor an alarmist, but who argues that we should dedicate most of our (scarce) resources to equipping people, mostly poor people, to adapt to whatever comes. That means fighting diseases like malaria that are bad now and will be only worse if the climate gets warmer; or improving education, especially that of girls, in Third World countries; or enhancing poor kids’ nutrition.

That doesn’t mean “doing nothing” about CO2, but it does mean that we don’t put all of our eggs in that basket.


February 3rd, 2010
4:12 pm

Richard, that sword cuts both ways. what if we “believe the hype” and surrender freedom/lifestyle because of Chicken Little? what are the consequences of allowing crabon credits to become a de facto currency, or cap and trade to become law? here’s the answer: NOTHING in terms of CO2 output and greenhouse gas. That is to say, NOTHING as it relates to preventing or slowing climate change. You gonna give up your car? your home? the computer you are using to chime in? BUT, the fear-mongering will allow politicians to take those things from you by force. this fear will permit politicians to control nearly every aspect of life: production/distribution of food, medicine, transportation, housing. don’t you see, when Al Gore’s private equity firm “invested” in a start-up that will benefit from “the war on climate change” he showed his true colors (color of money – and political power is money and money is power). “liberals” were right to question the conflict of interest surrounding Cheney’s relationship with Haliburton and Bush/Big Oil, but when one of their own engages in nearly identical behavior, we are supposed to sign off on it because he wants to save the world? c’mon. Gore et al’s intentions may have originated from a place of sincerety, but when he placed a wager and set himself up for a windfall, he ceased to be a steward of the planet and became a steward of Al Gore, Inc. (climate change profiteer).


February 3rd, 2010
4:14 pm

chris, there are barely “thousands” of climatologists world-wide. The “consensus” includes large numbers of economists and social science -ists whose professional focus has very little to do with climate. Anyone seriously involved in espousing and testing a scientific theory should be perfectly willing to allow anyone else to blast holes in his/her theory. It is called the scientific method.. The problem here has always been about the public policy, not the science. If governments were not contemplating massive economic changes, there would be a small debate in scientific journals which you and I would have probably never heard of. The problem is the attempt to use the policy/agenda to drive the science and dictate research results. That is reprehensible. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a big pharma trying to prove that its drug doesn’t kill people or a hyper-left wing pressure group trying to distribute the wealth of the industrialized world to developing countries – the end result is the same. Trying to shoehorn the science into the policy agenda has horrible consequences. If you don’t want to accept that, then who has the real contempt for science?

Worst President EVER!

February 3rd, 2010
4:17 pm

DAVO – I agree with you but don’t you know that “the women, the children, and the underprivileged” will be hardest hit because they’re either too fat to walk uphill, their legs are too short, or they don’t know “up” from a hole in the ground.

Cirque du Logic

February 3rd, 2010
4:44 pm

Kyle, my objection to you and your ilk-moustachio’d wingnut milkmaids is that you equate the debate about global warming to patriotism, God, supporting the troops, Marxism, and being a good person who wuvs tiny widdle baby bunnies.

Now I don’t know any more about solar formation and its inevitable consequence of planet formation any more than you do.

However, you can’t mention science without hiding behind our flag, and that’s why you’ll never rise above the spin machine, man.

I know what you’re thinking now, too. You’re about to object that a liberal tax code which exploits a non-existent global warming trend will stunt economic growth for no more reason than Europe went to war over the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. Well, you’re….. right! They will. It will be another tax. More government. Bigger government. Great, now Bob Barr will pop up holding a sign that sez, “Big Brother lives!” or “1983″

or is it “1984″? Dammit, I always get my doomsday date-scenarios mixed up. I hate myself. I hate the Mayans. I hate Greenpeace. I hate the Tea Party.


Sorry, I get easily distracted ever since I quit smoking 14 years ago. (Woody Allen)

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that a little objectivity training would do w-w-wonders for your credibility. Remember, Y-Y-YOU are the professional here, not m-m-mini me.

The world turned upside down. Now there’s science you can believe in.



February 3rd, 2010
5:00 pm

Wally, have you read the research using Antartic ice cores showing the planet is still about 2 degrees C below the 10,000 year average? Very interesting date……so we still have 2 degrees to go before we get to average, then let’s discuss global warming.
On the polution side, I agree we can and should do more but we need to stop intertwining the two subjects.

Michael H. Smith

February 3rd, 2010
5:03 pm

Yes, human activities would still be contributing to changes in the climate.

Still not buying “human induced climate change” theory. Sold solidly on human activities aggravating the changes that take place in climate for reasons other than anthropogenic which are very apparent and empirically conclusive, Kyle.

Of a far greater worry or challenge, however, remains with methane than CO2. A challenge that could be more of an opportunity than a potential for the atmospheric problems it could present, if it were used as fuel. Since methane is the principal component of natural gas, a cleaner burning fuel than coal or gasoline from oil, including the facts of this country’s security and economic interests depend on energy, a win-win-win situation is there for our taking if we choose: A cleaner environment at less risk of methane being released into the atmosphere to reap havoc, a giant leap closer to American energy independence where our prosperity will remain at home rather than being shipped abroad as a foreign trade debt, and all those people with all that oil who don’t really like us very much will lose a tremendous amount of global clout and will have less money to buy less weapons, so our military expenditures will go down.

Ah, what a wonderful world it could be, if only it could be?

Drill, mine, and capture all the natural gas and methane we can baby, for we have more of it than anyone else in the world.

Intown Lib

February 3rd, 2010
5:10 pm

Let’s err on the side of saving the planet. Otherwise we’re all dead.


February 3rd, 2010
5:50 pm

He we are again, with that “the science isn’t settled” lie.
People like you will only be satisfied that global warming exists when gondola-tours of Miami, Mobile, and New Orleans become commonplace.
What I don’t understand is how you can be played for chumps, by people who have the most to gain from doing NOTHING about global warming. The only thing you get out of it is the chance to heap your hatred upon those who would make this world a better place, and the smooth existence that resides in the heart of senseless denial.

Another old man

February 3rd, 2010
6:06 pm

So they were wrong in the 70′S about global cooling but their right this time with warming. Pardon me for not jumping on the wagon.


February 3rd, 2010
6:30 pm


This overwhelming majority of scientists you refer to is dwindling. Even the American Physical Society has a petition signed by a substantial number of members to withdraw their letter of support based on the sloppy scientific work being uncovered. The petition was started by Dr. Happer, head of the Happer labs at Princeton, who said he now considers global warming to be the largest scientific fraud of modern times.


February 3rd, 2010
6:39 pm


If you have the time, I’d really be interested in getting your feedback on this article.


February 3rd, 2010
6:47 pm

Kyle, please keep up your apocalypse columns. We certainly will not hear these things on the evening news.

Byron Mathison Kerr

February 3rd, 2010
7:09 pm

I predict the definition of climategate in the future will refer to this embarrassing time period where commerce, and thus the politics it has purchased, tried to hijack empirical science.


February 3rd, 2010
7:32 pm

I guess there are those who don’t think that pollution doesn’t equate to climate change. How can I argue with those who cannot, or will not, connect the dots. Oh well, I think I’ll go back to sleep.

Rafe Hollister

February 3rd, 2010
8:00 pm

The time for debate over Man Made Global Warming is over. There is a consensus of people with common sense and brains, that man does not have this awesome ability to change the earths climate either deliberately or by indifference. We do not even understand normal weather patterns much less climate change. Computer weather models for the next 48 hours are often horribly wrong. You can guess how accurate computer models for the next century are.

I try to build a fire everyday or so just to honor Al Gore. Today I felt guilty and decided I was not going to burn that wood and release all those carbon atoms in the atomosphere, so I threw the firewood on the ground and walked off. As I walking away, I realized that if I ddn’t burn that wood and release those carbon atoms, the termites would do it for me. I guess Carbon just wants to be free. Born Free, free as a breeze.


February 3rd, 2010
8:45 pm

Why look so much to the “experts” on climate change? Who recalls the frequent ice storms we had in Atlanta back in the 1970s? And when was the last time? Hum, methinks we have a problem Houston!

But to Kyle’s credit, I agree we don’t need to put all our eggs in one basket to solve this thing. Has anyone considered population controls in conjunction with carbon credits? After all, we can reduce our energy consumption, but that is null and void with all the new people/consumers.


February 3rd, 2010
10:23 pm

intown lib, I think the point is; “we’re all dead ANYWAY”. don’t let a bunch of profiteers convince you they can make a better mousetrap. take charge of your own life. do what you can to be a responsible steward. hike the Appalachian trail, sea kayak on the GA coast, learn to surf and go to Hawaii (and watch the sunrise over Hauleakala on Maui), visit Volcanoes National Park, got to Alaska, and make up your own damn mind! don’t be guided by the ominous portents of those who have a vested interest in the gloom and doom scenarios. think about Pompei, flu pandemics, genocide, the plague, the 2003 tsunami, Haiti, etc. you think SUVs and aerosol cans are a threat to humanity? these Crusaders are trying to convince you they can save humanity… at a price.

The Thin Guy

February 4th, 2010
12:06 am

Questions for the Warmies. What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Viz, does the Earth have an eigenstate? And if you get the Earth to that temperature (which will make Moses’ parting of the Red Sea look like a card trick) how do you intend to maintain it? Unless you know what the temperature of the Earth is supposed to be you’d can’t possibly conclude that warming, cooling, or stagnation is good, bad, or indifferent. Is the science settled? Yes, indeed. The Earth is going to be totally destroyed by Global Warming. Six billion years from now when the Sun turns into a Red Giant. Do human affect the environment or climate? Of course. When you relieve yourself you’ve changed to ocean level. The question is in what significant figure. If you want to worry about something worry about why the Sun has almost no spots

If they don’t come back soon it means an ice age. And I can’t take those woolly mammoths and saber toothed tigers.

Horrible Horrace

February 4th, 2010
8:40 am


February 3rd, 2010
8:45 pm

LOL…Any scientist, fraud or not and probably even the silly Goron, will tell you the good planet earth does not match its same orbital path year after year nor does its axis rotation remain the same…kinda wobbly.

Now add to that volcanoic eruptions, sunspot activity and flucutations in the earth Magnetosphere and you have a recipe for fluctuations in temperature.

These are all natural occurences and for little ole man to think he could have a drastic impact on such colosal events is just grandiose and somewhat conceited.

Global climate change is nothing more than a cover for Global wealth redistribution.

John A. Jauregui

February 6th, 2010
2:46 pm

The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.