This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Cold Wind

Bruce Krasting's picture




 

 

Cold wind blowing today in the North East, fitting for the first day of winter. The whole country is having a bit of a cold spell. Even the poor folks in Palm Beach might see a frost (raises hell with the begonias).

 

 

I was feeling a bit sorry for the folks in the sun belt before I saw that it was down to –55F in Siberia. That’s cold, a fifty year low.

 

 

The topic of weather gets me to a story I’ve been following - the continuing drought in the mid-west. The odds say that two years of severe drought is unlikely, but that is what’s happening. The 30/90-day rainfall is a fraction of normal:

 

 

 

The lack of rain has many negative side effects. One is the water level on the Mississippi. The water is so low that ships, sunk and lost twenty-five years ago, are now visible.

 

 

A number of emergency steps are being taken to keeps the river navigable. Thirty miles south of St. Louis there is a rock formation that was once deep below water. Now it’s a risk to barge traffic, so they’re blasting it apart.

 

 

A more controversial step was taken to drain water from Lake Carlyle. The hope is that the extra water will raise the northern Mississippi by six inches. Not a big deal considering it's already down by 20 feet. The water drained from Lake Carlyle will keep the upper Mississippi navigable for, at best, another twenty days.

 

 

The river is already impaired; it’s getting worse by the day. There will be economic consequences to this. There are not enough trains and trucks to pick up the volume of goods that go by barge. Everything that goes up and down the river is going to get a fair bit more expensive in the very near future. A hell of lot of “stuff” gets floated up and down the Mississippi, so this is one to watch out for.

 

++

 

There is no connection between this weekend’s weather and climate change (It’ll be back in the 80s down in Boca next week), but I’ll jump to that topic anyway. For those of you who have strong feelings (either way) on matters of climate, there was an important development this week.

 

It appears that a significant motivation for Obama to nominate John Kerry as the next Secretary of State is that Kerry is going to lead a global effort to “Confront Climate Change”. The Hill has the story on this today (Link), some snippets from the article:

 

From Twitter:

 

“Confident John Kerry as state sec is good news for climate. Cross fingers his dedication will make climate a strategic priority. ” Hedegaard - E.U.’s commissioner for climate action.

 

“One of the most pressing challenges is to reverse potentially devastating climate change. Kerry understands the need to work closely with allies on the most pressing topics – including climate change.” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

 

 

Quotes:

 

“I have absolute confidence that Secretary Kerry will be committed to action on climate change as he, is the most knowledgeable, passionate person to break the international logjams on this existential threat.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

 

“Sen. Kerry will bring vital expertise and knowledge on the issue of climate change as we endeavor to work toward a meaningful, balanced international agreement in 2015,” - Eileen Claussen, the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

 

“As Secretary, Senator Kerry will face numerous issues that are crucial to both the security of our nation and the future of our planet, including critical decisions on the Keystone XL pipeline.” - Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.

 

“Senator Kerry could certainly teach the President a thing or two about how to make a clear and compelling case for climate action. That starts with saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline and then continuing to use the powers of the presidency to regulate emissions and promote clean energy.” - Jamie Henn, co-founder of the climate advocacy group 350.org .

 

“We need a leader with John Kerry’s experience and talent at the helm of the State Department. There is much more to do on all of these crucial challenges, from nonproliferation to climate change.” - Hillary Clinton.

 

 

I thought it was interesting that Obama did not mention Kerry’s role as "Climate Defender" when he announced his nomination. I guess Obama understood that this is a very hot topic, and if the plan is for his new Sec. State to put the nix on the Keystone pipeline; he had better keep his mouth shut until after Kerry's Senate confirmation.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

-Should the Secretary of State be leading a new global charge directed at climate change?

-Is there anything that might be done to influence the climate?

-Are humans responsible for climate change? Are Americans responsible for climate change?

-Does your opinion of Kerry, as Sec. State, change, now that you know that one reason he is getting the job is to push a climate agenda?

 

It’s cold out, I’m just trying to turn up the heat.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:33 | 3090672 mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

He'll read from the script, whatever it may be.    Global warming?   Check.   Global cooling?   Check.....

"You bet we might have." --Sen. John Kerry, asked if he would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein if he refused to disarm

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." --Sen. John Kerry, on voting against a military funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq

I'm going to be honest with you -- I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?" -John Kerry on health care: "

 

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:07 | 3090392 TulsaTime
TulsaTime's picture

Is this some clownish diversion? Focus the idiots on the easterner giving our independence to the UN while the senate becomes even more of a cesspool of manipulation for the power classes? Good long range plan. It could be close to gods work.

Next: Ron Paul surgeon general.....

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 11:49 | 3091338 Bob
Bob's picture

Is that a serious question?

AGW gets the same kinda rush of passion and page views here that gun control gets at huffpo. 

Neither strike me as a good place to seriously discuss some issues.

But TPTB sure appreciate the distraction. 

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:03 | 3090385 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

"Are Americans responsible for climate change?"

Well Bruce, if we are, the last thing anybody should be happy about is having to watch us try to fix it.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:12 | 3090397 TulsaTime
TulsaTime's picture

Humanity is responsible, in fact I've seen studies that put the bulk of apportioned particles as English in source. But even the Romans were fond of a smelter or two.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:52 | 3090367 Sri
Sri's picture

Ironic that today's fundies would have ridiculed Noah and his Ark

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:03 | 3090386 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

Huh. Today's Fundies would have arrested Jesus, Mother Mary and the happy gang of disciples with charges of being anti-semite, terrorism and endangering the welfare of children.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:46 | 3090353 omniversling
omniversling's picture

Climate Change: Natural Cycles? Anthropogenic Global Warming? Or Chemtrails, HAARP and 'Owning the Weather by 2025'?

If the weather could be controlled, how much money could traders/dealers make on shortages and 'natural disasters'?

How likely is it that weather modification could be maninipulated to be the 'new terrorism', ushering in an era where all kinds of extreme weather events had the population begging for FEMA and other .Gov assistance (Sandy aftermath)?  And all kinds of civil liberties were 'legitimately suspended' (eg guns confiscated after Katrina)? Everyone begging for 'order out of the chaos'...and 'blaming it on the weather'...

 

'The weather affects the whole world'=globalist dreamcake.

 

Doco: WHY in the World are they Spraying (Full Length):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis

Doco: WHAT in the World are they Spraying (Full Length):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

Owning the weather in 2025 - Military Applications of Weather ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/af2025ap.html

Great little research paper this one:
"Operational Defences through Weather Control in 2030" - by Michael C Boger, Major, USAir Force, Air Command and Staff College (USAF Air University) 
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515

HURRICANE SANDY - Predicted in 1997 using a Drill. Same Track,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QE05jpf9PI

?Dr. Ben Livingston : The Father Of Weaponized Weather (Full-Length HQ)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cjBYk0weJk

http://rezn8d.net/2012/04/06/everything-you-could-want-to-know-about-haarp/

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/want-to-know-about-weather-mo...

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:57 | 3090376 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

Meh, maybe They just want you to think they can control the weather.

They're sneaky like that.

Hell, maybe You're Them.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:56 | 3090375 omniversling
omniversling's picture

Plus another major unkown quite possibly having a major disruptive effect on weather: the injection of artificial frequencies into the ionosphere, including HF, radar, telcoms...very interesting doco:

RESONANCE - BEINGS OF FREQUENCY

http://vimeo.com/54189727#at=0

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:40 | 3090333 s n p
s n p's picture

my records show the climate has been changing now for almost 4.5 billion years.  btfd??

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:50 | 3090463 PUD
PUD's picture

One more snide and stupid comment. For most of those billions of years the planet could not support life at all let alone human life. It is juvenile to make such a statement. The problem is not change it is rate of change. Geologic time scale changes allowed for adaptation. Cram a climate cycle into 50 years and i doubt you'll be able to grow gills or survive in a barren desert.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 21:57 | 3090596 s n p
s n p's picture

unfortunately the fossil record bears out that of the 99.9 % of species that are now extinct, they have done so with remarkable start stop precision at abrupt junctures of climate change.  life on earth has evolved by a series of sharp changes causing radical change in a very short period of time.  why is it different this time?  there is lack of proof it is all man made.  what we understand about it constantly changes and could only fill a thimble.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:03 | 3090608 PUD
PUD's picture

There is no lack of proof only your lack of effort to find it...it's easy by the way. Climate change has happened and at times it's been dramatic and fast. 99.99% of everything that ever lived has gone extinct for various reasons. Are you in some hurry to join them? Have your children join them? Is that your rationalization to continue to fuck up the planet?

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 13:52 | 3091506 BigJim
BigJim's picture

So... the temperature rising a few degrees - over the course of a century, if the already disproven models are to be believed -  is going to detroy all human life?

Wow. I (and virtually every other life form on the planet) routinely survive much larger variations of temperature every year, but I'll take your word for it.

BTW - nice conflations between stuff that really IS undisputably toxic - like heavy metals and industrial pollution (and worrying trends like resource depletion) and a trace gas that has yet to be proven to actually be changing the climate. Very convincing to the casual reader. I infer from this that if anyone doubts AGW, they must also think mercury and dioxin are benign. What fools!

I like it.

BTW - the oceans aren't becoming more acidic. They're becoming more neutral, ie, less alkaline. Interesting you don't appear to know the difference, given how loudly you advocate the 'facts' of AGW.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:52 | 3090369 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

I think it's called 'recency bias'.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:26 | 3090294 PUD
PUD's picture

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, much of it is man made. No, there is nothing we can do about it now, it's too late and the economic consequences of shutting down our carbon based economy would be catastrophic. Worse and less discussed is the acidification of the oceans. This is not controversial at all. It is a fact. It has nothing to do with the sun and everything to do with co2. It is 100% man caused and poses a far more immediate threat to mankinds well being. The very food chain is breaking down as lower ph values destroy the calcium shells of the micro organisms that make up the very base of the food chain. There is no disagreement on this at all. It is real, getting worse and is terminal. The loss of the fundamental base of the oceanic food chain will be fatal for humanity. In addition, it is not just a rise in global temperature that threatens us. There are other consequences from massive industrialization. Heavy metals now rain down on the Pacific Northwest blown across the sea from China. The dead zones in the oceans are expanding. Fresh water is harder to find. The changing weather patterns pose huge risks as you saw with sandy and the drought not only in the midwest but across Asia, India and South America. The Argentina wheat harvest will be poor at best due to a 100 year drought. Etc etc...We are the cause. The United States is the primary cause with China close behind. Drive on suv!! Shop till you drop you fat bastards. Most of you have no idea what you've done.

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 10:15 | 3091191 new game
new game's picture

seems as though there is a fair amount of denial of a problem or ten out there.  hmmm

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 07:31 | 3091061 OldPhart
OldPhart's picture

Hmmm, appears to provide a means of self resolution.  Therefore we can ignore it.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 21:14 | 3090513 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

it is not just a rise in global temperature that threatens us. There are other consequences from massive industrialization. - PUD

yes +1000

but TPTB corporatocracy are all too happy to conveniently shift attention away from that, and instead to debate the percentage of hypothetical future global warming that can be attributable to humans.
Better for them to ignore the nuclear, biological, and chemical pollution, the specie extinctions, fishery depletion, de-forestation, aquifer depletions, and so much more resulting from the globalized pursuit of the American production/consumer nightmare.
More Round-up, more military-dependent industrialism, and more manipulations by big finance is NOT what will make for a pleasant and habitable world.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 21:38 | 3090563 PUD
PUD's picture

Yes!  I doubt very much that any sceptic here would gladly leave his little subdivision toll brothers cookie cutter mall abutting nest for a shack in any of Chinas or indias major industrial cities where the sky is never seen. The shit that is created in these industrial sewers do not stay there. The atmosphere and oceans know no borders. How about living near the tar pits in Alberta? of outside a strip mine or on some estuary with a million dead fish floating on it? Climate change is but 1 disaster looming as a direct result of our constant and escalating abuse of this planet. You cannot eat a fresh water fish caught anywhere east of the Mississippi without ingesting a host of chemicals. There is not one biological system on the earth that isn't in decline...not one. Doubt it, mock it, make light of it but you are completely dependent upon the earth for your life and when it become un-inhabitable you will be no more.

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 09:57 | 3091161 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

I don't know about every biologigal system on earth but 100 years after having the forests burnt off and the smelters dump crap in the rivers and lakes around here, now you would have to look really hard for any evidence it happened at all...as we are being over run by wildlife and it's a full time job stopping your property being over grown by trees while you are drinking out of the rivers and lakes. The planet sir will not remember humans 200 years after they are gone.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 19:59 | 3090378 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Perhaps, but you are not offering actual facts/statistics either, just saying it's not debatable, that there is not any disagreement, etc. I call bullshit on that just given huiman nature alone. There is never, or should never, be any topic that is above and beyond debate in science other than things like gravity itself. When I hear statements like that it makes me more skeptical. My daughter is a scientist doing research at a large midwestern university and unfortunately only those proposals that interest the people doing the funding ever go anywhere. Any proposals contrary to the 'beyond debate' crap would never get funded anyways, so we'd never know I guess. That's not saying that what you are saying is not happening, but just that I am skepical of dogmatic claims in the scientific community sometimes.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:32 | 3090432 PUD
PUD's picture

I read the data. The data is not dogmatic. I do not say anything or claim anything without evidence. The evidence is clear and unambiguous. It is available to anyone who cares to look it up.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 21:45 | 3090574 Umh
Umh's picture

The climate warms up and the climate cools down. Any predictions based on a few centuries are essentially meaningless. If an ice age is coming it will get cold. In some places the sea level is going up and in some places sea level is going down. blah, blah,blah. As someone early said the worst part is the parasites trying to capitalize on the "issue".

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:15 | 3090628 akak
akak's picture

 

If an ice age is coming it will get cold. In some places the sea level is going up and in some places sea level is going down. blah, blah,blah.

What a fascinating hypothesis.  And here in my ignorance I thought that there was only one "sea level".  I guess all those altitudes "above sea level" shown on every map in the world are all wrong.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:57 | 3090716 Umh
Umh's picture

You are correct in that you are wrong on this subject.  More information is available to those who look past the spin.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:08 | 3090732 Umh
Umh's picture

One example. Not the best I've seen but it's there for people to look at.

 

http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2012/09/Mean_sea_level_trends

 

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:14 | 3090741 akak
akak's picture

Differences of a few millimeters are easily made by shifting winds and ocean currents, and such tiny differences have NOTHING to do with the broader issue of a worldwide rising sea level due to the melting of continental glaciers and ice caps such as those on Greenland, whose melting continues to accelerate at rates which surprise almost every climatologist, even those who were considered most "alarmist" on the matter just ten or twenty years ago.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:19 | 3090752 Umh
Umh's picture

Wrong is wrong unless it's you Akak?

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 00:01 | 3090799 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

You're only 19 weeks - bubbling up so to speak.

 

Your citizenism gives you away.

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 00:39 | 3090839 Umh
Umh's picture

1 year and 7 weeks when I look. I could've have sworn that it's been even  more than that.

 

Also of interest You and Akak have been here the same number of years and weeks.

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 09:01 | 3091122 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

Becasue I am Akak.

 

You have solved the mystery sherlock.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:06 | 3090724 akak
akak's picture

Um, and you might want to reconsider the possibility of sea level going UP in some places while it is simultaneously going DOWN in others. 

As AnAnonymous is so fond of saying, "Make me laugh!"

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:13 | 3090737 Umh
Umh's picture

Obviously you didn't bother to check or think for that matter. There is a lot more to the issue even assuming that agw is happening. Things like water temperature, gravity.... It's a bit more complex than melting an ice cube in your booze.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:04 | 3090610 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

So you feel okay about losing your home? It's only every 10,000 years. Though I feel kinda shitty that this time we did it to ourselves and our kids.

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 13:38 | 3091483 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 So you feel okay about losing your home?

Let's see now... the sea level is estimated to be rising, what, between 18 and 59cm a century? Exactly how many houses around now are going to be lost from that?

As for your repeated assertions that the science is settled - you and your tag-team partner PUD have outed yourselves with that claim. The science is far from settled, is far from actionable, and has proven to be a nice little earner for its proponents and their sponsors.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... evidence that hasn't been tampered with, I might add.

Hockey stick? The 'loss' of the ME warming period? Hiding the decline?

This putting Climate 'Scientists' up on a pedestal makes me laugh, too. Scientists gave us Sarin, weaponised anthrax, napalm, munitions made of depleted uranium, the Tuskugee Experiment... scientists are no more ethical or moral than anyone else, and no less venal.

We see corruption throughout government and the various branches of society it dominates. Anyone who doesn't cast a jaundiced eye upon AGW is either credulous or has some hidden agenda.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:02 | 3090723 boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

AWWWW,

Now you're Mr. Sensitive.

A minute ago you were calling me a puking, fucking cunt for disagreeing with you. You libs are sure easy to spot.

Completely open minded...except for anyone who disagrees with you.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:55 | 3090708 Umh
Umh's picture

A house every 10,000 years. That's not bad at all for a depreciating asset. And in truth I think it will fall down long before the tide or a glacier take it down.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 20:48 | 3090459 57-71
57-71's picture

Oh, well, debate over then. Pud has an opinion.

Everyone else must be wrong then.

Eh, what about the scientific community that challenges PUD. Can he post his PHD and credentials in climate research?

Thought so.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 21:45 | 3090576 PUD
PUD's picture

I am educated in wildlife biology. I live near and have dealings with scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic. I know the people who are doing the research...everything from ice core analysis to fisheries. I've been on research vessels and seen for myself. I read everything on the subject including the raw data. It is not my opinion that I express. Everything that I've stated is documented scientific fact. Supported by data, peer reviews, testing and observation. There is no legitimate challenges to the consensus now..none. Wackos with political or corporate ties will always be there with their agendas feeding you comfort in lieu of fact. No one that i know or have dealings with or read has any agenda other than the search for scientific truth.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:52 | 3090790 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

And exactly who paid for your research and that of your freind's? We know there has been proof of fraud in climate gate and others. But we still should not question the science? And the fact that governments and large corporate interests are set to gain vast power and wealth from implementing the solutions should give none of us pause?

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:49 | 3090700 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

A big problem that conservatives in general have with AGW, aside from the fudging of the data by the folks at East Anglia (-if they lied here, and then said "mea culpa, it was just one time", how are ordinary folks to believe them) is that the statists are a little too egar to find state-controlled solutions -read: control of individuals.

Former president of the Czech Republic, Vachlav Klaus, having grown up under state communism, likens AGW to a communist control mechanism.  

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:57 | 3090709 akak
akak's picture

 

A big problem that conservatives in general have with AGW, aside from the fudging of the data by the folks at East Anglia, is that the statists are a little too egar to find state-controlled solutions -read: control of individuals.

<Banging head against desk for the 100th time>

Don't you, can't you, see the glaringly obvious logical fallacy in your 'argument'?  Merely because a political opponent can use a fact to his political advantage, no matter how disingenuously or mistakenly, IN NO WAY REFUTES THE VALIDITY OF THE FACT ITSELF!  God, I am SO tired of hearing and reading this already!  This is as bad as all the creationists who refuse to learn the multitudinous facts in support of biological evolution, or honestly explore the subject in the first place, merely because they mistakenly believe that it automatically denies the truth of their sacred book.  This is nothing but the grown-up version of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 23:57 | 3090797 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Yeah, but if the data are LIED about (as they were), and the climate models are LIED about (as they were), therefore the implications for the models and data are WRONG...but AGW folks never lie or fudge data, right? 

 

 

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 09:08 | 3091032 Popo
Popo's picture

Exactly right.

And furthermore, the question of causality is really the crux of the conversation.   We know that the earth has been both much warmer and much colder throughout history.   We also now know that climate varies much more frequently than we had imagined.  The notion that temperatures should remain consistent year over year is completely unsupported by historical evidence.   We now know that we're currently living in a historically bizarre "temperate period" where global temperatures have remained fixed in a relatively narrow band.  

One obvious response to the AGW crowd, is that their "base line" of consistent temperatures is clearly unnatural from a historic perspective.   What they are "hoping for" (ie:  maintaining continuous consistent temperatures) would be environmentally unprecendented (not to mention flat-out "weird") based on our collected data.   It would be like measuring ocean wave-height on a particularly calm day, and then insisting that something was "wrong" when the wind started kicking up waves again.

The historical evidence clearly suggests that temperatures should naturally vary much more -- either much hotter, or much colder than they are now.   We also know from arctic ice-core studies that massive global shifts in temperature occur quite quickly, often over a period of a couple decades.  

So given that we know conclusively that temperature variations are:

a)  Normal

b)  Historically much greater than we have ever seen in recorded history

c)  Rapid

d)  Ancient (pre-date humanity and human causes of global warming)

The onus is on the AGW crowd to prove the *yet unproven* and quite possibly "fringe" theory that humans can effect the temperature of entire planets.  We live in a world where seasonal temperature shifts are massive, and historic shifts have clearly been more massive.  It might make us feel better to think of the Earth as a consistently temperate place -- but it isn't and it never has been.  

The AGW crowd may of course, be correct.   Maybe mankind is affecting the temperature of the planet.  And it is imperitive that we do find out if they're correct.  If they're right, it is indeed a very big deal.   But this is science and science bears the mandate of evidence.  Thus far we have seen ZERO hard evidence of causality, and yet the AGW crowd pretends that they have at some point successfully made their case.   They have not.

Additionally, we now know that they have *fudged* their evidence and that there is massive financial incentive for them to do so.

So far, the case-for-causality presented by the AGW crowd is beyond flimsy.  They theory may be sound.  But theories are just that:  Theories.   Intelligent design is a theory too.   So was the geocentric model of the solar system.   Thankfully, the modern world insists on evidence.

Needless to say, it would be both irresponsible and dangerous for policy to follow unproven theory.  

Now.. if someone could just explain that last bit to the Federal Reserve...

 

 

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:47 | 3090697 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Well, aside from the scandal of 'Climate-Gate' with the e-mails showing research-money-bribed 'global warming' hoaxing at the University of East Anglia ...

Here are 141 scientists - names, university affiliations and credentials included - who have signed an open letter to the United Nations indicating that, as far as they are concerned, the theory of human-made global warming may well be a hoax. These scientists say:

« ... the science is NOT settled ...

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth ...

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable... »

Open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, 8 December 2009

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.123

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:02 | 3090605 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Just so you know, there is a good chance that at least some of the comment posters on threads like this are actually paid corporate or Heritage think-tank shills. I've seen them come and go, they change accounts once they are pulled out of the closet, but it's not too hard to spot them.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 21:16 | 3090524 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

PUD did fine. You don't have to believe it. But someday you'll understand.

Sat, 12/22/2012 - 22:06 | 3090616 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

 

"Just so you know, there is a good chance that at least some of the comment posters on threads like this are actually paid corporate or" Soros "think-tank shills"

tfify

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!