This week’s sign of the non-apocalypse (Vol. 1, No. 3)

National governments are getting the message that the United Nations’ besieged climate panel (see one recent summary here) is not a group to stay snuggled up to.

First, from Pajamas Media:

During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in [Tuesday's] Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Boxer and Jackson’s statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is very closely tied to the IPCC reports…

(snip)

Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:

‘In my opening statement, I didn’t quote one international scientist or IPCC report. … We are quoting the American scientific community here.’

When [Sen. James] Inhofe directly asked Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the ‘gold standard,’ she answered:

‘The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat risks in this country.’

Jackson also noted:

‘[The errors Inhofe had presented were] international events. The information on the glaciers and other events doesn’t weaken … the evidence we considered [to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]‘

The problem with that, as the PJM author, Charlie Martin, points out, is that

The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant. In the past, the worldwide nature of the climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the reasons for using the IPCC report…

So it would seem that a review of the data which the EPA used is in order. Such a review may become necessary due to a lawsuit filed against the EPA by the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation. Fifteen 15 members of Congress, including Georgia’s entire Republican delegation in the House, are listed among the plaintiffs.

Elsewhere, Britain’s weather authority, the Met Office, is pushing for an independent review of all temperature data from the past 150 years. This is a significant development because the Met Office has been one of the biggest promoters of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW). Reports the Times of London:

More than 150 years of global temperature records are to be re-examined by scientists in an attempt to regain public trust in climate science after revelations about errors and suppression of data.

The Met Office has submitted proposals for the reassessment by an independent panel in a tacit admission that its previous reports have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

Two separate inquiries are being held into allegations that the CRU tried to hide its raw data from critics and that it exaggerated the extent of global warming.

In a document entitled Proposal for a New International Analysis of Land Surface Air Temperature Data, the Met Office says: ‘We feel it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyse surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organisation.’

The new analysis would test the conclusion reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’.

The Met Office of course says it’s confident that nothing will change once the data are reviewed. But substantial questions have been raised about the quality of some temperature data, so that confidence may not be warranted.

At the very least, it’s good to see even grudging acceptance by the AGW crowd that declining public trust in its methods and results demands transparency and review — not more arrogance and cover-ups.

122 comments Add your comment

HDB`

February 24th, 2010
11:20 am

Look, we all know that pollution and unbridled laissesz-faire economics damages the environment; the instruments determining HOW MUCH damage should be questioned!! It IS economically prudent to minimize the damage so that there IS a suitable place for all to live!! The effects that the intersection of man and nature has on the environment…be it called global warming, climate change….whatever….has to be determined and solutions discovered to minimize said effects. It CAN be done with a minimal economic impact!!

citizen

February 24th, 2010
11:21 am

Talk about declining public trust, the head of The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has just been pulled from appearing before the congressional hearing regarding Toyota. I understand NHTSA knew about the dangerous problems with Toyota and helped downplay the problems. Has our government been protecting us or their positions?

LA

February 24th, 2010
11:31 am

A Third of All U.S. Casualties in Eight-Year Afghan War Have Occurred Since Obama Ordered Escalation.

More than 300 U.S. soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan since May 15, 2009, the day when the first major wave of new troops ordered by President Barack Obama arrived in the country.

The 308 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan since then account for about a third of the total of 920 U.S. casualties in the eight-year war.

Of the 308 soldiers who have died since mid-May 2009, 287 were killed by enemy action.

LA

February 24th, 2010
11:32 am

LA

February 24th, 2010
11:34 am

Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Kyle Wingfield

February 24th, 2010
11:46 am

Anti-Wooten, I’ve had enough of this stupid name-calling and have warned readers against it several times this week. You’re entitled to your opinions about Bush, but you’ll have to share them with us next week. You’re off the blog until then.

Rightwing Trolls

February 24th, 2010
11:47 am

Facts and reason have no place in the blogland. Neither does questioning why we let OBL ride a donkey across the border to Paki while we were preoccupied with invading a soviergn nation whi did not attack us and who did not have WMD’s.

All that matters to blog trolls is thier guy winning, not track records, not history, not our country… They would’ve gladly opted for 8 more years, just to be able to say “my guy won”.

Kyle Wingfield

February 24th, 2010
11:47 am

LA, remember not to gloat over or even mention Anti-Wooten’s ban, or you’ll be next.

TGT

February 24th, 2010
11:55 am

Boxer is splitting hairs. How many in the “American scientific community” to which she refers played a role in the IPCC report (Mann, etc)? In other words, “the science is settled, at least that science which furthers our agenda.”

Horrible Horrace

February 24th, 2010
12:00 pm

HDB`

February 24th, 2010
11:20 am

Uh NO…we dont know that. Enough Hype!

Horrible Horrace

February 24th, 2010
12:03 pm

When compared to the UAW, GMC, Ford, Dodge…Toyota is still an excellent automobile company. If anything it should be the Big 3 LOSERS being called up on Capitol Hill by our elected LOSERS for this Dog and Pony show.

CJ

February 24th, 2010
12:15 pm

The Met Office of course says it’s confident that nothing will change once the data are reviewed.

The confidence of The Met Office is justified. Scores of scientists, scores of peer-reviewed research, tons of data back-up the consensus among climatologists (not to be confused with meteorologists, science-fiction authors, or podiatrists) that the earth is warming at a record pace and that this warming caused by human activity. The consequences of such warming are real and dire.

To be clear there wasn’t a problem with research coming out of University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. There was a problem with stupid statements by one of their scientists that indicated that he was concerned about the politics when his job was to focus on the science. There also is a problem with two out of the scores of conclusion in the IPCC report because they had not been peer reviewed (one of the conclusions was subsequently peer reviewed and confirmed) and, therefore, should not have been included.

In short, despite the so-called liberal media’s freak out, the problems found are with a couple of drops in a sea of overwhelming evidence suggesting the truth about global warming. Anybody who denies that it is both happening and caused by human activity, despite the consensus among those who are in the best position to know, are sticking their heads in the sand for reasons that everything to do with ideology and little to do reason.

It’s real, it’s happening, and if we don’t do something about it, we’ll live to regret it–as will our children.

BBC: January 2010 warmest on record. Yes really!: “It may come as a surprise to many of you, shivering through the coldest British winter for decades, but data released this evening shows that global temperatures, as measured by satellites, rocketed in January to a new record.

Jefferson

February 24th, 2010
12:27 pm

Maybe the world is not warming, the ice is just melting on its own. No to taxes.

LA

February 24th, 2010
12:45 pm

“LA, remember not to gloat over or even mention Anti-Wooten’s ban, or you’ll be next.”

I’m not, Kyle.

LA

February 24th, 2010
12:46 pm

Horrible Horrace

Just saw where a Toyota spokesman went off on congress. It was AWESOME! Congress seems to think that they own Toyota and can talk to them like children.

Oh if only November would get here sooner!

TGT

February 24th, 2010
12:49 pm

CJ :Not a problem with the research out of East Anglia’s CRU?! Surely you jest.

What about the faulty programming in their climate computer models? What about the 42 missing Chinese weather stations that Phil Jones (CRU director) tried to cover-up/hide? What about the Briffa tree ring data? etc. etc.

StJ

February 24th, 2010
1:06 pm

Hopefully now enough people are awake so that cap-n-tax dies a quick death. These so-called ’scientists’ need to do some real research and then we’ll discuss it.

CJ

February 24th, 2010
1:12 pm

The Guardian

“It is important to keep this in perspective, however. This dramatic revision of the estimated impact of urbanisation on temperatures in China does not change the global picture of temperature trends. There is plenty of evidence of global warming, not least from oceans far from urban influences. A review of recent studies published online in December by David Parker of the Met Office concludes that, even allowing for Jones’s new data, global near-surface temperature trends have not been greatly affected by urban warming trends.’

[British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan] accepts that his allegations do not on their own change the global picture. But he told the Guardian: ‘My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se. Jones knew there were serious problems with the Chinese research, yet continued to rely upon the research in his work, including allowing it to be cited in the IPCC report.’

LA

February 24th, 2010
1:22 pm

I wonder if this poll will make Democrats want to tighten up on illegal immigration.

Poll: More than half of Hispanics identify as conservative

A bent to conservatism and family makes Hispanics a promising pool of votes for Republicans, but the party’s targeting of illegal immigrants has withered its attraction.

Regardless, Gov. Rick Perry has fared relatively well, perhaps because of his anti-Washington rhetoric and his careful immigration stance, a recent poll indicates.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/022410dntexhisppolitics.39fae92.html

LA

February 24th, 2010
1:23 pm

CJ

This is a very important part of that story:

In the first part of a major investigation of the so-called ‘climategate’ emails, one of Britain’s top science writers reveals how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study

TGT

February 24th, 2010
1:25 pm

CJ: Still doesn’t change the fact that data was maniupulated. If it was changed in one instance, what about others? What temperature data can we really trust?

TIMESONLINE:
““The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.”

Skeptical of Skeptics

February 24th, 2010
1:25 pm

It’s kind of annoying for the author of this piece to state “the AGW crowd”. I mean, really.

HDB`

February 24th, 2010
1:34 pm

@ Horace: Uh…WE DO KNOW….look at the ecological DAMAGE at the Mexican border where no environmental controls avail. Land is becoming unusable, water undrinkabke and unusable. There are market-based solutions that CAN eliminate environmental damage….but no one wants to do it!! THAT’S the idea behind much of the rhetoric.

Now…there ARE lunatics that take things a bit too far….and their cacaphony drowns out those whose concerns ARE serious……

A clean environment benefits us all!!!

Skeptical of Skeptics

February 24th, 2010
1:45 pm

LA — gee, I heard it snowed recently in Atlanta. HEY! Proof of no global warming, right? Wo hooooo!!!!!

TGT — The scientist quoted in the London Times (owned by the same owner of FOX News, btw) has stated clearly he is convinced that human activities have impacted global climate. That newspaper has committed journalistic malpractice in suggesting he feels otherwise. Oil companies and Deniers are just getting desperate to stop the climate legislation. What oil company payroll are you on? Or do you just hate government generally?

CJ

February 24th, 2010
1:46 pm

Thanks for the link TGT.

Except for this little gem–”Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic…His study, which has not been peer reviewed,…”–the article is actually not bad. I hope you read the last four paragraphs of it.

TGT

February 24th, 2010
1:56 pm

CJ/Skeptic: Lack of peer review/media conspiracy. Sounds a lot like many of the problems currently facing current AGW theory.

(I wish I was on an oil comapny payroll. Any takers?)

Andy

February 24th, 2010
1:58 pm

There are scientific studies that show that people will search for information that will confirm their belief systems, rather than deal with the facts as they are. That is what is going on with you, Kyle

Here is a link for you education. Enjoy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090821135020.htm

Glaciers are disappearing, the Greenland ice sheet is retreating, massive icebergs are breaking off from the Antarctica ice sheet. So even some temperature gauges are off, how do you explain these facts?

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:03 pm

Andy

That blog is from August of 2009.

“how do you explain these facts?”

They aren’t facts.

Too bad

February 24th, 2010
2:07 pm

“Beseiged,” because almost three years after a huge report by a panel of 30,000 scientists was released, someone finally found one wrong figure among thousands and thousands of pages? That’s like saying that there’s a typo in a history textbook, so the American Revolution must not have happened.
The furor by deniers repeating this endlessly in the blogosphere does nothing but confirm what this really is: Big Oil and Coal’s propaganda machine whipping up outrage among the Glenn Beck crowd against nearly every respectable scientist who studies anything relating to this issue. The evidence is overwhelming and the right wing is misrepresenting facts (including about these two “scandals”), which is particularly disgusting because in doing so you are dooming our children and grandchildren.
It’s too bad that people this sloppy and willing to repeat lies and misrepresentations are given such a forum by a respectable newspaper.

Andy

February 24th, 2010
2:08 pm

LA,
The link in my comment is not from a blog; it is a summary of a scientific study.
SO are you saying that glaciers are not retreating, that Greenland is not melting? How do you justify your opinion?

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:12 pm

“The furor by deniers repeating this endlessly in the blogosphere does nothing but confirm what this really is”

No, but fake data and lies by “scientists” DOES prove that it’s all untrue.

Keep drinking the kool aid!

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:14 pm

“it is a summary of a scientific study.”

From 2009 no less. Since then e-mails have discredited ALL claims. Global warming “scientists” have either quit their posts or have been fired.

“SO are you saying that glaciers are not retreating, that Greenland is not melting?”

Nope, but I AM saying that man isn’t causing it to happen. NO proof whatsoever that man is causing it to happen.

“How do you justify your opinion?”

Faulty data, scientists quitting their jobs or being fired, companies pulling out of the “green movement” in large numbers……

Oh, and Al Gore is nowhere to be found.

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:15 pm

“every respectable scientist who studies anything relating to this issue.”

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!! Yep, that MUST be why they are being fired or quitting their jobs.

Kyle Wingfield

February 24th, 2010
2:16 pm

Skeptic, unless you have a real good explanation for yourself, you’re off the blog until next week for stealing someone else’s handle and writing something that would get that person banned.

@@

February 24th, 2010
2:28 pm

The problem?

The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant. In the past, the worldwide nature of the climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the reasons for using the IPCC report…

A trickle-down benefit. Liberal democrats hate those. Well sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.

Things do get curioser and curioser, don’t they?

Kyle Wingfield

February 24th, 2010
2:32 pm

“Besieged,” Too bad, because there’s far more than one wrong figure involved here.

I’ll ask again a question I’ve asked before, and which none of the AGW believers here have ever bothered to answer:

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.

Horrible Horrace

February 24th, 2010
2:41 pm

LA…agreed. These pompous rear end on their shoulders Congresspersons suddenly find a chink in the armor of Toyota? HA! Nothing more than our illustrious Grand Poo-Bahs strutting around for camera time and being able to say “See citizens of America…we care”.

The sad part is the US auto buying atomitons will believe them. *sigh* some will never learn. Right HDB?

“I heard it snowed recently in Atlanta. HEY! Proof of no global warming, right? Wo hooooo!!!!!”

So whats your point skeptic…

@@

February 24th, 2010
2:45 pm

The science behind this study is something that few American citizens understand. There are those who show up on blogs repeating what they’ve read. I’ve never done that…I don’t understand it, so I don’t discuss it.

One thing I can spot is a venture capitalist with connections to government. That’s Al Gore. I have never liked that arrogant, blowhard opportunist….big ol’ crybaby. He’s lost all his marbles….time to go home to his “offset”….thbbppppt, mansion.

Kyle Wingfield

February 24th, 2010
2:46 pm

To be clear, I was referring above to the blogger who goes by “Skeptic,” not “Skeptical of Skeptics.”

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:49 pm

Horrible Horrace

The idiots in congress seem to think that they own everything. I think they’ve gotten used to scolding Government Motors so much that they forgot that Toyota can tell them to shove it.

Toyota is STILL the best and most reliable car manufacturer, besides Honda.

Andy

February 24th, 2010
2:52 pm

LA,
The link in the comment did not mention one thing about global warming. It was a study about cognitive dissonance. Did you even bother to read the article or attempt to understand what it was talking about? The article actually talked about how people believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911, when he wasn’t.

“We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter. The problem is that this notion of ‘motivated reasoning’ has only been supported with experimental results in artificial settings. We decided it was time to see if it held up when you talk to actual voters in their homes, workplaces, restaurants, offices and other deliberative settings.”

@@

February 24th, 2010
2:52 pm

What is it Rahm Emmanuel said? “Never let a crisis go to waste?”

The government’s conflict of interest in the Toyota witch hunt

And yes, there’s talk about more regulations on the auto industry and to the government, especially the Democrats, more regulations are always better.

Never gets old to government bureaucrats, just more obvious to the American people.

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:52 pm

“He’s lost all his marbles”

Yeah, after 2000, Al really went downhill. He is a very creepy person. What I find interesting is that back in the 80s his wife really went after hair bands like Twisted Sister. Now, bands have turned into a bunch of whiney little communists that love him.

Strange indeed.

LA

February 24th, 2010
2:58 pm

“The link in the comment did not mention one thing about global warming.”

No but YOU were chiming in on global warming.

“Did you even bother to read the article or attempt to understand what it was talking about?”

Not all of it. I don’t usually read left wing propaganda. But to the point about Saddam, you have no proof that the majority of American’s believed that Saddam had anything to do with 911. BUT, Bin Laden did say that Iraq was where the battle would be fought. Al Quida WAS in Iraq being wiped out by the surge.

The war should have been sold as Saddam breaking UN treaties etc… THAT was reason enough to go in and remove him. I always laugh when liberals rail on Bush for getting rid of a mad man. Bill Clinton and MANY other democrats said that we did the right thing by going in.

It was DEMOCRATS who politicized the war and guess what, we’re still there…….

Swede Atlanta

February 24th, 2010
2:58 pm

Kyle, and Nero fiddles as Rome burns…

I don’t disagree that the reports of tampering and other misconduct have harmed the reputation and confidence in the scientific data that has been used both by scientists and policy makers. I also think the time has come for the data to be revisited and corrected as necessary.

But even these misdeeds do not change the fact on the ground that the earth is warming. Independent studies (those other than the ones cited above) confirm we are experiencing a warming trend. We can see it in the nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer, the more severe storms (both winter and summer) that are characteristic of warmer waters in the oceans.

The question is to what extent is man to blame for this and if he/she is, what can we do about it. Some believe it is just a normal cycle and that man cannot have had any meaningful impact. Others see the 300+ years of human burning of fossil fuels as having had an effect.

I for one don’t believe we can consume and burn the amount of coal, oil and gas that we do, emit the volumes of pollution into the air and not have an effect on the climate.

Swede Atlanta

February 24th, 2010
3:06 pm

LA,

You think that it was worth nearly 5K young American lives and countless thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of non-combatants in Iraq simply because Saddam wasn’t doing what the U.N. told him to do?

No one disagrees that Saddam was a terrible dictator. I challenge you to find a single Democrat, including Bill Clinton, who suggest that simply getting rid of a bad guy was justification for removing him. They don’t. They don’t disagree the world is better without him and his regime. But you will not find them saying that was sufficient justification. They think more was needed such as an imminent threat to America. As it turns out Saddam was not an imminent threat to us.

The Democrats politicized the war? Hmmm….the right-wing wrapped themselves in the flag after 9-11 and in the fantasy that we would be welcomed in Iraq with open arms and roses. They used the terror threat for political purposes up to and including days before the 2004 election.

Andy

February 24th, 2010
3:08 pm

LA,
I wish I had an ignore button for your irrational comments. Left wing propaganda? Please spare me. That web site is all about science, not left wing, right wing center.

LA

February 24th, 2010
3:09 pm

“You think that it was worth nearly 5K young American lives and countless thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of non-combatants in Iraq simply because Saddam wasn’t doing what the U.N. told him to do?”

It wasn’t just me.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

LA

February 24th, 2010
3:10 pm

“That web site is all about science, not left wing, right wing center.”

Sure it is.

“I wish I had an ignore button for your irrational comments.”

Contradict much?

CJ

February 24th, 2010
3:11 pm

What would it take for you to decide that the “consensus” wasn’t right after all?

The answer is simple. A new consensus among independent climatologists.

I’m no climatologist, and neither are nearly all skeptics who are usually cited. And those who are cited are, as has been pointed out, frequently on the payroll of big oil or a party who has a financial stake in the outcome of the debate.

I am interested in science, but if I’m having a chest pains, I’m not going to rely on the opinion of a proctologist (also a scientist) when there’s a cardiologist nearby with a different opinion. Climate change skeptics will use the testimony of a acupuncturist to support their claims if they can refer to him as a “scientist” with a straight face.

For further reading, check out Real Climate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists : “IPCC errors: facts and spin” (2-14-2010). Worth a read.

Incidentally, the same question/assertion can be applied to global warming skeptics. What would it take for you to decide that the consensus was right after all? If you don’t have an answer to that question, then you aren’t interested in science.