This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Climate Fanatics Run Into Public Relations Snag
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,
Scientists Turn into Stalinists
Last week, we happened across a press report about a group of climate scientists so eager to shut up their critics that they want to employ the State’s police, courts and jailers for the purpose. Specifically, a group of academic (and presumably tenured) climate alarmists supporting the “CAWG” theory (CAWG=”catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) have written a letter to president Obama, attorney-general Lynch and OSTP director Holdren, demanding that so-called “climate deniers” (or the organizations allegedly supporting them) be prosecuted under the RICO act (you can see the document here (pdf) – already its first paragraph is “alarming”, as they inter alia brag about things they have incorrectly predicted to happen for more than 35 years, such as an increase in “extreme weather”).

This is not the first time that climate alarmists are letting their inner Stalin hang out and are trying to impose a spot of Lysenkoism for the “good of humanity”. For those not au fait with Lysenko: the man was an influential Soviet biologist who came up with an erroneous theory “based on dialectic materialism” about how to improve crop yields. It never worked, but over the 44 years during which his influence lasted (!), more than 3,000 biologists were either fired, jailed and even executed for opposing his views (a number of modern-day radical climate alarmists are also on record for demanding the harshest imaginable punishments for “deniers”).
The Debate over the Poorly Conceived AGW Theory is not Over
Here are a few excerpts from the letter we want to briefly comment on:
“The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.
(emphasis added)
Apart from the absurd insinuation that only “government-funded science is good science”, as if none of the people involved had any self-interests, science is not the result of some imaginary “consensus” or attains the status of holy writ once its conclusions appear in a government-sponsored paper. As an example, it took the “consensus” 40 years to accept Alfred Wegener’s theory on continental drift, by which time he was dead.
In principle there is nothing wrong with employing a conceptual approach in the natural sciences, but eventually, empirical data must bear hypotheses out. It is moreover not true that we can “afford” to bring industrial civilization to a standstill on the off-chance that the alarmists might be right one day, especially considering how wrong they have been so far.
Let us just briefly address the handful of things listed above. “Extreme weather events” like hurricanes and tropical cyclones have actually done the precise opposite of what has been and continues to be widely claimed – their frequency has declined to multi-decade lows (e.g. in Australia, the “lowest level of cyclone activity in modern history” was reported last year. US readers will have noticed that since Katrina a decade ago and the intrusion of Sandy, hurricane activity has actually been de minimis – statistics confirm it loud and clear).
Global tropical cyclone frequency hits a multi-decade low – click to enlarge.
Rising sea levels: it appears the rise is so slow that the catastrophes that have been predicted since at least 1980 not only have not happened, but that the opposite has occurred in these cases as well. No Micronesian islands have sunk beneath the waves – au contraire, they are growing. Of the 50 million “climate refugees” that were certain to swamp us by 2010, only one has shown up to date, and this seems to be a case of someone trying to get a residence and work permit in a developed country by means of an innovative method. The exact opposite of the alarmist predictions happened in this case as well: the very regions that were supposed to be the main source of “climate refugees” and should have been almost depopulated by now have seen the strongest population growth on the planet.
We haven’t followed the debate on the “acidification of the oceans” very closely, but we note that there definitely is a debate, as this notion appears to be based on questionable data (a.k.a. “sparse and contradictory evidence”). Lastly, even the alarmists are acknowledging that there has been a near 19 year “pause” in global warming (although NOAA is scandalously altering past surface temperature records from their actually measured to “assumed” values, in order to create a warming trend literally from thin air). They have hitherto seen fit to provide 66 different excuses for why the forecasts of their models have been so completely wrong. It is very mean of Mother Nature that she refuses to cooperate with the alarmist agenda. Of course, that the central premise of the AGW theory might actually be wrong isn’t even considered by these worthies (luckily they haven’t yet found ways to retroactively fiddle with the satellite data).

The Pause – satellite measurements have detected no warming for nearly 19 years
The sentence that “the poor will be endangered” unless we regulate industrialized civilization out of existence is preposterous in the extreme. Again, if you assume the exact opposite to be true, you will be correct. In the past, human civilization has flourished whenever temperatures were a lot warmer than they are today (e.g. during the medieval warm period, vineyards thrived in the Scandinavian countries and global population growth and progress both accelerated greatly).
One of the biggest problems with the economically damaging regulations demanded by the alarmists is precisely that they cynically deprive the world’s poor of the possibilities for development the rich countries had at their disposal (see this report for details). In fact, much of the proposed legislation is ultimately nothing but a socialist wealth distribution scheme (that will not only redistribute, but ultimately destroy wealth) – as its major political proponents are occasionally admitting in unguarded moments. As has been noted elsewhere, this is simply “ideology masquerading as science”.
Suppression of Dissent to Preserve the Gravy Train
It seems to us, all of the above should be seen as grounds for vigorous debate, both on the scientific and the political level, before any more harm is done by costly (and ultimately useless) legal activism. However, this definitely isn’t how the letter writers are seeing it:
“We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
In other words, those who disagree with the alarmists (which is ever easier to do as one after another of their predictions fails to come true) should be treated like the mafia or similar criminal organizations. Needless to say, this would not exactly be conducive to scientific or policy debate. We have yet to see the opponents of string theory demand the jailing of its proponents (or vice versa), in spite of their fierce disagreements.
Our first thought was therefore that one should probably “follow the money” – that the alarmists are probably increasingly worried that their gravy train might be derailed; that their lavish grants and privileges, including their role as “philosopher kings” advising the politically powerful, could come under threat as empirical evidence against their theories keeps piling up. This has inter alia also led to a recent rash of ever more hysterical apocalyptic predictions (see e.g. the laughable “sea level rise” panic outburst from Über-alarmist Dr. James Hansen, which is even denounced by his fellow AGW alarmists – i.e., it is too absurd even for them).
Before we found the time to write this missive, reality has struck in the form of a rather sizable PR problem for the leader of the group of letter writers – and it has indeed to do with “lavish grants”. As Climate Depot reports, “Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’”. You couldn’t make this up.
George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.
Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed. “The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO 20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO 20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.
(emphasis added)
AGW has indeed become an “industry”, albeit an entirely taxpayer funded one. It looks more and more like a giant racket. If it were only a racket, there would be no problem – but it also pursues an agenda, under the pretense that we need to “save the planet” from what increasingly looks like natural variations we have little or no influence over. The agenda however has a clear leftist-authoritarian bent, as all the demands and already implemented policies involve more regulation and government control over the economy, are harmful to economic development and progress, are bound to condemn the poor to remaining poor, and aim at redistributing wealth in a manner that will simply end up destroying it to the benefit of a handful of cronies.
That people obviously benefiting greatly from this racket have the gall to demand that the State treat their critics as major criminals in Stalinesque fashion is really jaw-dropping chutzpa.
Conclusion
The caste of climate alarmists reminds us strongly of assorted doomsayers throughout history. They have almost become a kind of priestly caste, accusing us of committing the alleged “sin” of capitalism, even while they reserve for themselves the right to partake of its fruits to an extent few others are able to (as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore notes, “environmentalism has become a religion”). Mind, we don’t believe genuine environmental concerns should be ignored, but AGW looks more and more like a contrived non-issue. The hysteria that has been on display of late is probably an indication though that its proponents are actually losing the debate.
- 50797 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



"In the past, human civilization has flourished whenever temperatures were a lot warmer than they are today (e.g. during the medieval warm period, vineyards thrived in the Scandinavian countries and global population growth and progress both accelerated greatly)."
In honor of the Pope's visit, I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ to this reasoning. Obviously these scientists who call for stifling free speech need to burn in hell, but the pivot to "global warming is good" is just idiotic.
Come on, everyone. The energy companies are feeding this propaganda. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or climate scientist) to figure that out. As usual, however, the best way to attack what we can all see with our own eyes is to point out a few loons in the scientific community who believe the end is nigh and that we need to jail anyone who disagrees with them. As Chairman Xi said, "two wongs don't make a wight."
Nailed it.
Next up: Peak Asteroids
Fucking Asteroid Tax
This shouldn't surprise anyone. The theory of man made global warming / climate change / whatever it is called tomorrow, has become a religion to it's most zealous adherents.
Muslim Jihadists want your blood on their swords if you disrespect or "deny" that "There is no other god but Allah…" "Climate Change" proponents are no different, because "Climate Change" is their religion.
The theory of Capitalism has become a zealot's paradise, although there is no long term proof it actually works as a societal meme in a sustainable nature. In fact, logic would contradict it's long term existence. After all, there is only so much ( in a finite system) that can be exploited and subjugated.
Muslim Jihadists want your blood on their swords if you disrespect or "deny" that "There is no other god but Allah…" "Captalist's" proponents are no different, because "Capitalism" is their religion.
Let's start with new paradigms and discard all obsolete ones.
AGW, the IPCC's hockey stick, CO2, etc., etc., etc, have all been proven bullshit, while the memes are pushed tooth and nail for the expediency of increaed taxes, regulaiton and the NWO.
None of these things have been "proven bullshit." There has been an attack on the science, yes, but there is no verdict. The only people who conclude that the issue is resolved are ideological. I am open to the idea that it's all bullshit, but I see things with my own eyes that say it isn't, and many scientists say it isn't. Keep an open mind, Knukles. The truth is not always easy to find when so many have so much at stake in telling you what it is.
Infidels!
"have an open mind" progressive code phrase that softens the brain up for the coming brow beating of do gooders. It has been debated ad nauseam. It's a fraud that is being pushed to squeeze the last remaining pence out of a poor mans ass.
Lets see, if your grade schooler refuses to buy into some hair brained concept that runs totally at cross purpose with his iinner boy (Tommy has two daddy's) and makes the grave error of voicing his opinion you can bet your ass he will be pulled aside and re educated. Now when the same boy grows up and is released from the clutches of the state and if he still has the ability to think for himself after being pummled to death by statist dogma he is told he has to keep an open mind. (really? after 12 years of telling him he has to close his mind, shut up and obey the dogma) Well fuck me, looky here, that cuts both ways and one thing a prog will not do is "open his mind" because he has been fully assimilated into the matrix, a dyed in the wool genuflecting programmed fanatical drone for the state.
I can't think of a better argument in favor of anything than having an open mind. Think for yourself asshole. Having an open mind merely means that you will hear both sides and decide for yourself. God fucking forbid.
So, if one has an open mind, listening to both sides and decide based on evidence that one side is actually manipulating data, facts, people and economy, is someone a "big bad meanie pants" for pointing out that they are, ya know manipulating data, facts, people and the economy?
I thought that fell under free speech ;-)
So you think only one side is manipulating the data? Maybe the truth isn't what either side is telling us.
I think that's closer to the truth. The real truth is there is no "normal temperature" for the Earth over any given lifespan. What there is in fact, is abnormal people trying to predict (and profit on) things they will never see come to pass.
Like carbon credits.
I’m looking for a win-win-win on this one and my money’s on a catastrophic solar megastorm in the near future,
A catastrophic coronal mass ejection that hits earth dead-on will change life as we know for quite some time.
But this way the climate Stalinists get their massive reduction in fossil fuel use as most everything that produces or uses energy will be toast, the skeptics will be able to gloat because it has been the sun at the bottom of the problem all along and the preppers will be vindicated as their preparedness will come in handy when everything comes to an abrupt halt.
Everybody is happy this way.
(But they will all have to congratulate themselves because there will be no way to communicate over distance, except maybe smoke signals and pigeons.)
As long as they're happy...
continental drift my ass. expanding planet baby!
And electric universe for the win!
Some basic facts about CO2 concentrations:
70,000-100,000ppm (unconsciousness within an hour)
7000-8000ppm (earth’s historic high)
10,000ppm (insects die)
5000ppm (US Occupational CO2 exposure limits – 8 hrs.)
5000ppm (headaches)
2000-5000ppm (optimal greenhouse targets)
3000-4000ppm (poorly ventilated indoor spaces)
2000-2500ppm (well ventilated indoor spaces)
2000-2500ppm (Jurassic era levels)
360 – 410ppm (earth’s atmosphere today)
250ppm (earth’s historic low)
200ppm (IPCC target level)
150ppm (level under which plants die)
0ppm (where Bill Gates wants it)
All we have left is grape koolaid.
It's a little warm and stale....but it should do the job.
What matters most is a moot point anyway. The ocean conveyor will collapse putting us in overshoot. We changed the variables too quickly.
The 500 days is up.....and nothing happened.
You boys are out of bullets.
It's the sun, baby. The question now is, how did humans manage to fuck up the sun?
The same Thermal Blanket which traps the Radiant Energy from..."the Sun"... will also serve to reflect the Radiant Energy off into space. That is why the ALBEDO of Venus (percentage of sunlight reflected) is so elevated.
If the Greenhouse Gas is OPAQUE to outbound Radiant Energy then is is just as OPAQUE to inbound Radiant Energy. It is not a "One Way Mirror".
So the source cannot be "the Sun" and the Greenhouse Gas only serves to INSULATE the Earth from Solar Radiant Energy.
So if the Sun is producing more energy,or less energy, the Greenhouse Gas actully provides a MODULATING AFFECT.
So, if not the Sun, then what is the source of Heating?
Looking at Venus it is Vulcanism. That planet's Mantle and Core is very active and the surface is continually changed.
WITH THAT NOTED...In recent years Earthquake Activity has been much more frequent on Planet Earth. This data INDICATES that our Mantle and Core have become much more active than they have in the past.
And Man has absolutely NOTHING to do with that.
So this Anthropomorphic Climate Change bullshit...IS BULLSHIT!!!
And that is from the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
No grant money for you, Mr. Crabby Pants.
“how did humans manage to fuck up the sun?”
I don’t know, but whether we did or not, the financier psychopaths will find a way to make us pay more and the collectivist psychopaths will figure out how to use the bogus story to further control everybody.
I'm sure we could spin this as being very bullish for Solar Industry stocks
lol there may be no "normal temperature" for the earth over any given lifespan, but for creatures like you to continue to exist you sure don't want it to leave a pretty tight range.:)
People will try to profit on anything. I thought we all agreed on that long ago.
8 billion arses create a lot of shit, quit trying to convince the gullible that even if they're not careful such masses of asses can't possibly stink up the place beyond repair, the facts don't back it up.
If AGW Hysterics had unmanipulated data sets on their side there wouldn't be any debate at all GoinFawr, we would have genuine "consensus" and certainly the appeal to the Pope's "higher authority" (of all people, the friggin Pope...lol...can a new round of Inquisitions and purification's be far behind?) by the "authorities" would be unnecessary.
As it stands now, hysterics want you to believe in tree rings up to 1960 ONLY and not believe in tree rings after 1960. You do realize the thermometer was invented in the 1700's right? No doubt driven by everyone's observation that it seemed a little warmer, as we were then coming out of a cooler period. Implying of course in the obverse, that it was warmer BEFORE the Little Ice Age.
One thing is for certain, we shall never exhaust the supply of people running about gnashing their teeth and tearing out their hair whether it's the coming Ice Age of the 1970's that will freeze us all forever under five miles of advancing glaciers like the statues of Pompeii or burn us to a crisp like the last hot dog on the grill.
"If AGW Hysterics had unmanipulated data sets on their side there wouldn't be any debate"
well then thank goodness so many peer-reviewed studies indicate that calm. rational, respected scientists do have access to that unmanipulated evidence.
Your position is akin to claiming
"two undergrads faked their physics lab results so they could go party with the rest of the class, therefore force is no longer a function of mass and acceleration."
"well then thank goodness so many peer-reviewed studies"
You mean the ones that the East Anglia emails revealed were manipulated to keep the sceptic's papers out of the journals so that no one could claim a "peer reviewed" paper was crtical of AGW?
Is your memory that short? Google "East Anglia emails" and "hide the decline", the rest of us now know you're a convert to the Environment Religious Movement (ERM). Doesn't hysteria lead to religious ecstasy, like the Pentecostal "speaking in tongues" phenomena?
Nope, my memory is fine, hence the
"your position is akin to...etc.etc."
Next time try this out:
Read first, think second, comment third.
And if you can't manage that, maybe you should just down-vote comments when you lack a reasonable rebuttal; stick to where your skillz lie.
I actually have skills, along with my education. I don't just repost AGW talking points and propaganda. I do my own thinking as well, unlike you. And again, unlike you apparently, I was taught to question blanket statements, trendy movements and control schemes dressed up as "science".
You apparently mindlessly support AGW nonsense, and believe as stridently as any disciple in the absolute truthfulness of AGW doctrine. Believe away, I have no faith, and that makes me a poor follower for any religion. Do as you like, just leave me alone.
And I won't be paying any "carbon tax", buying any "emissions credits" or wasting time worrying about hurricanes that failed to spawn, sea levels that failed to rise or non-sensical calculations of "global average temperatures" made with doctored data by corrupted researchers. I have actually done research, and found out firsthand how hard it is to do it right - and how easy to make a mistake or fail to detect a fault, no matter how hard you try to get it right. Once money enters the picture, it's even easier to justify trimming the data to fit the theory - or ignoring data that fails to fit. How many studies have been funded to prove nonsense? Just look at the Federal Budget, it's full of them. IPCC is another great resource for lies.
You ignore East Anglia because you can't explain away corruption when it's so well documented. You ignore the faulty "hockey stick" model that makes hockey stick graphs appear from ANY data, even uncorrelated, random data because you can't explain that away either. Then you claim I don't think?
It's a shame you're ignorant of science; I hope you do go far, and find somewhere you can actually contribute something; it's certainly missing here.
Your comment is composed of so many fallacies (some repeats for crying out loud), I have so little time, and this comment thread is about to become an illegible, towering column of single characters; so if you'll allow me the luxury of being brief:
Your arguments suck.
Scientists and "experts" who preach AGW are nothing more than theologins who pretend to be intellectuals. They have proof of man's role in climate change, much like every priest, rabbi, pastor, etc has proof of their beliefs.
do you just cut and paste that rote incessantly? Is it your job or something?
I only ask because the empirical method is employed regarding the subject a lot more than you seem to be aware
(that method has not traditionally been very big with religious types, ever)
Both the article and many of the "comments" here are likely from the hand of paid lobbyists.
The headline "Scientists turn into Stalinists" is especially disconcerting. It speaks of an underlying hostility towards science (and likely progress in general) that American society is rife with, and represents a type of populist rhetoric that appeals directly to the most ignorant and misinformed segments of the country's population. Unfortunately, this constitutes the majority of Americans.
The country is an historic mess, and a genuine embarrassment.
Dunno about the majority of Americans part, but certainly the majority of ZH zealots fall into that category.
Hostility toward science is displayed by anyone seeking to end debate on teh subject. Nothing could be further from science than bullshit consensuses.
..unless the empirical data backs the consensus up, you mean.
This is old news, just look for that great Channel 4 documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
The US is still a bit behind (or ahead?) of Europe, because here in Europe all the former left wing/communist parties quickly transformed into "environmentalists" after the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain came down in the early 1990's.
A great example is he German Green Party, which is called Bündnis90/Die Grünen. "Bündnis" means alliance and the 90 refers to....the year the party was founded. Guess what, the old German communist party was quietly absorbed into B90/Die Grünen. ;-). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_%2790/The_Greens
The amazing thing here in Europe: because of massive left wing brainwashing by the taxpayer funded 'public' mainstream media, people swallow all those tax hikes and refugee crisis.
P.s. Anyone here still old enough to remember the "acid rain" hype from the 80's?
Uh we made regulatory changes that forced industry to clean up its act, THAT's the reason for the reduction of acid rain; many lakes have recovered as a result.
thank you so much for reinforcing my point
LTER, if you listen to what these people are really saying, they are telling you that climate change is bullshit, and many, if not most, of them know it. WHats their solution? a global tax on carbon. What emits carbon? ALL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. They want a global tax on EVERYTHING, and global warming is the vehicle they are using to achieve it. This is a scheme to redistribute the worlds wealth, nothing more. And while I know that you would love to see the wealth of the oligrchs redistributed to everyone they stole it from, that ain't the way this works. The way this will work it the middle class's wealth will be 'redistributed' to the poorer countries in the world, with the VERY SAME oligarchs you profess to hate taking a massive cut of that welath. That is all. that is the end game of all this nonsense.
Right you are, carl, and as for LTER's claim that "the pivot to 'global warming is good' is just as idiotic" as CAGW itself is wrong for two reasons:
1) Decades of satellite data make a compelling case for the "greening the planet" — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
2) Increasing cold is by far worse than increasing warmth — http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/21/an-inconvenient-truth-from-medical...
Yep
A warm atmosphere with a high (at least double present) CO2 concentration /is/ a good thing though.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00048145
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/full
http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/abs/10.4141/cjps78-119
But we bloody already know you will never decide for yourself when your "open mind" goes against the laws of nature, someone else has to force it down your throat with a law suit, then you will know.
Yes, that concept appears to have been lost on them. Hence it should be termed indoctrination vs education.
I once saw a bumper sticker "Impeach Bush" next to " Coexist" on a Prius parked at Whole Foods. One of the times I have regretted having such an old clamshell phone that can't take pictures.
Miffed;-)
First, you were at Whole Foods so stop being self-righteous about it.
Second, having a "co-exist" and "Impeach Bush" sticker is not contradictory. Bush did, after all, wage a holy war that involved killing Muslims and stirring up a hornet's nest. And his Vice President caused 9/11.
I go to WF under protest. They are the only store that carries a coffee Mr Miffed loves and since he has done so much for me I grit my teeth and do it out of love. It is located in Hillcrest which is the predominant gay part of San Diego and considering I have had verbal altercations with some aggressive LBGT individuals, I'd rather not bail out my husband from jail.
If you espouse coexistence in a general sense and then demand the removal of a person, then coexistence appears to be conditional. Therefore the sticker should have had a qualifier as to who meets your criteria for coexistence. That would at least be honest.
Miffed
Coexist with everyone except the assholes that bombed their own country for financial gain.
+1 or more
the assholes that bombed their own country for financial gain
READ PEOPLE
Shall we also coexist with the "ally" nation full of assholes who knew 9/11 was coming, but instead kept their mouths shut and gleefully "documented the event"?
But they didn't bomb their own country did they? Is that what you're sayin'?
Just sayin
[911-tripwire apparently tripped]
Well there are relationships where one of the parties involved will declare, "What is mine, is mine and what is yours is mine."
Marriage typically works out that way...WHEN YOU MARRIED A GOLD DIGGING BITCH FROM HELL...
(apologies to Sam Kinison.)
I disagreed with you above, LTER, but agree with you on this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc
Too bad you weren't able to document that sublime artifact of 21st Century Consumerism Control.
We need an EXIST sticker design, with the C wiped out. Screw tyranny.
Coexist
Exist
Exit
Plan A: coexist
Plan B: exist, accent on plan
The primary perceived bias to be overcome is that the Statist purveyors of AGW have proven that they cannot be trusted in this political science field based on documented past action and revisions.
Once you start connecting these operators to all the other connected social engineering is when your skepto-meter goes off the charts.
Would truly be a shame if like the broken clock they happened to be right this time...but in the end trust is earned and these proponents are invariably in the company of those who steal.
So what's the average independent thinker to conclude?
IMO: Inconclusive.
"IMO: Inconclusive."
Smart reasoning, given that those who advocate the status quo and say everything is a-okay are the same multi-national corporations that have benefitted from the oil and coal economy. There is plenty of bullshit to go around.
They probably don't even know but they do what they do know which is talk their book...same as the scholarly experts sucking from the other statist teat.
End game if you leave it to these losers is a brick wall at high speed.
Generally it is safe to say when scientists use Gestapo techniques, their theories have left the realm of the scientific method,which encourages peer review, and entered a quasi religious state. This is the time for critical thought vs an open mind because clearly theirs has closed.
Miffed
Climate change totalitarianism is to science what Islam is to religion.
Climate change fanaticism is political authoritarianism disguised as science and Islam is political authoritarianism disguised as religion
Climate change denial totalitarianism is to science what spaghetti monster worshipping is to religion.
Climate change denial fanaticism is political authoritarianism disguised by oligarchs' flunkeys and plutocrats' sycophants as science, and spaghetti monster worshipping is political authoritarianism disguised as religion.
Hunh, insert any of the other Abrahamics in there and it works too.
Nice, empty rhetoric, ready to be stuffed with whatever flavour cheese you please.
I missed the part where skeptics of climate "science" were trying to force anything on anybody and that is a necessary component of totalitarianism. It is also one the AGW gaia worshippers have in spades.
Just because it's over your head doesn't mean it isn't happening.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
And try getting a government grant to disprove CAGW.
"And try getting a government grant to disprove CAGW."
I know, it's as if you have to at least attempt to be all unbiased when applying for gov't science grants, rather than having an obvious predetermined conclusion before even studying the subject; what a joke (/sarc)
Maybe the private sector would be a better place to seek funding for those who have already decided the 'right' science without even needing to study any evidence?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
Indeed, it is an especially good thing then that scientists understand that the condition of their continuing salary depends on producing unbiased, peer reviewed conclusions derived from the facts.
More importantly just because you say it is happening doesn't mean it is. You are making an extraordinary assertion lacking visible evidence. The burden of proof is on you to show the other side is as authoritarian as you are. Your side is visibly authoritarian the other side isn't. So your evidence is? What exactly? I see skeptics resisting authoritarianism and your side pushing it.
"More importantly just because you say it is happening doesn't mean it is"
That's been my point, it's not just little old me dictating what is happening, it's the facts, regardless of how much effort you put into ignoring them. Anyone willing to look can find truckloads of "visible evidence"; add a few brian cells, some skills, and they might be able to recognize the not so visible deductive evidence too. There are links to "visible evidence" scattered through this very thread of comments; though I get the impression that no amount of solid evidence will convince some people....
Please present your scientific credentials. Your PhD is in what? Climatology? Paleoclimatology?
Appeal to Authority.
EH wasn't appealing to authority, he was asking if the dude is actually an authority.
But who needs Dr.s, engineers, or specialists anyway? Good ol' common sense will suffice for most anything, sure.
Implying your opinion only matters if you have credentials AKA a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
Go on, pull the other one.
Didn't look to me like EH was implying anything of the sort; only that an expert's opinion carries more weight than a random ZH poster with an Oshc Kosh B Goch backed agenda.
Surely you're not suggesting that, for example, a layman's diagnosis is just as accurate as the neurosurgeon's?
(You know lobotomy? I no lobotomy)
Sorry, but your apparent misapprehension of logical fallacies doesn't serve to dismiss the claims of experts or overwhelming scientific consensus.
Here's an example of an actual 'appeal to authority' fallacy:
Not able to defend his position that 'regardless of humanity's behaviour it can have no effect on their environment' stljoe says he knows a secret scientist who says it's true.
Anytime you suggest the strength of an argument is enhanced by the credentials of the arguer you are engaging in a logical fallacy your misunderstanding of logical fallacies doesn't somehow refute that.
No, EH was questioning the weight of the dude's opinions regarding the argument.
Eg. Asking,
"Whose opinion on how to build a stable bridge is more likely to be accurate, a fry-cook's, or a structural engineer's?"
isn't the same as claiming the logical fallacy,
"Because he's a fry-cook, his bridge design must be unstable."
Implying your opinion only matters if you have credentials AKA a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
@LetThemEatRand: "Keep an open mind"
But not so open that your brains fall out, as we used to say.
With all due respect LTER, it's is all, absolute bullshit. It's the backside of the New Ice Age story we were being told back in the 70's (which didn't happen, by the way.)
Manipulating data, falsifying records, cherry picking readings...this is NOT science, it's a cult.
Let's review:
http://humanevents.com/2009/11/24/the-great-british-climate-fraud/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
And one has to be an ignorant "believer"...
The results demonstrate that Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology.
Bzzzt, wrong but thanks for playing...
The hockey stick has indeed been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
Standard Disclaimer: You should practice what you preach.
For your perusal LTER...
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
LTER.
Dude, they FALSIFIED the data at East Anglia. Sorry I call that bullshit. The theory is about man-made climate change. If we are THE problem then please explain why Mars has followed similar climate patterns to Earth. Also exactly why DID it warm, then freeze, then warm, then cool again over thousands of years before we started burning coal and driving Chevys?
Also please explain how, if WATER VAPOUR is THE most significant "greenhouse gas" by a longshot (the dreaded CO2 that ALL PLANT LIFE DEPENDS ON TO SURVIVE is less than 1% of the make up) then how exactly is the "man-made" or better yet potentially "man-controlled" or reversed?
It's a pile of horse shit buddy.
"There has been an attack on the science..."
Attack?? - you obviously know nothing about the science principle
And the science of fearishtism..... I mean conservatism? Where is the data, because the anectdotal is not looking good! Going backwards only reveals the roots of today's problems.
New paradigms. please.
My money is on Feudalism.
There is one major difference between these two Jihadist mobs. Muslim bros stick to their guns and do not change the doctrine. Ours instead were converted first into the Global Warming, which did not quite work out, so they turned coats into Climate Change. As this is a similar mirage, our Crusaders have to convert quite soon again, e. g. into Change Stagnation.
So the muslim jihadhists believe nobody is allowed to change the religious doctrine AGW jihadists think only they can change it? That seems like a footnote more than a major difference.
I wonder if they factor geo-engineering into their models.
Polution is a problem. AGW may be a problem.
Can the world handle yet another major religion, is my question, 'cause the ones we have are making a right mess of things already.
If it's problematic that religion is a go!
I agree. I found myself picking up trash out in Hell's Canyon that was not mine and putting it in my car. That place is amazing. Why ruin it with a bunch of fucking trash and throwing it down an extremely steep slope? Who does that sort of shit? I had to go pick it up and I am anything but a green weenie. As conservative and libertarian as I am I had to do it. That was a son of a bitch of a slope too. I regretted even going down to get the empty bottles and cans once I got down to them. It really sucked coming back up but I made it. I am too old for that shit. Don't throw your trash down the mountain side or anywhere else. I think we can all agree on that. Recycling is not a bad idea.
Shoving a political agenda down my throat and taxing me for it is another issue.
Another one? It's the latest and greatest!/sarc
The NWO Padre has switched teams, suckers! He wants to get his paws on some of those carbon 'shakedown' credits.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pope-francis-addressing-united-natio...
climate scientist = oxymoron
You're actually pretty funny sometimes.
-:)
Follow the money to JPM, GS, etc. Trillions trading silly carbon credits.
I have been trading carbon credits, it's really easy. Take a look at the chart of GRN. It traded at 11.20 today. Two years ago it had a 5 handle. Y'all are the same lot that didn't believe Gallileo or Copernicus. The abstracts of all the peer-reviewed research that makes up the scientific consensus are free to read. They all come to the same conclusion. Y'all can keep trading fossil fuels. I am gonna buy me a Tesla with my profits from carbon credits. Sheeple! What will you tell your grandchildren about AGW? Remember my voice in 20 years.
Thank-you...Astronaut Jack Harper!
Gallileo and Copernicus presented theories based of actual measured observable evidence and data, and they were attacked by the religious fanatics in charge who refused to give up their belief system that was based entirely on a lack of actual measured observable evidence and data.
Climate change scientists refuse to give up their belief system that is based entirely on a lack of actual measured observable evidence and data, and have been compared to a religion.
Seems you have the wrong end of the stick there EarthHuman, so be careful where you are pointing it.
I am pointing my stick at you, idiot. Have you looked at a chart of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? Now your going to tell me that it doesn't matter bc it's only PPM. You probably smoke cigarettes too, bc they don't cause cancer lol. The same thing is going on where oil lobbyists are spending millions on PR to brainwash fools like you. Please keep smoking packs a day. What is your scientific degree in? I have a bachelors of science at least and a high school reading level which is required to read peer-reviewed scienctific articles. Lol ignorant sheeple. Weep in 10 years when you look at the chart of GRN and see how much money you could have made.
Hi EarthHuman, I was doing some poking around today and found a book from 1872 that argued for the creation of an institution to gather data on "change of climate". The International Meteorological Oranization was born : )
p.s. pretty sure there's a rule here about cigarettes ; )
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-26/did-goldman-sachs-sacrifice-aus...
how do you recharge your Tesla, genius? most power is derived from fossil fuels
.....as is the energy to build them. Lets replace 4 cents KW/hour coal with 22 cents KW/hour wind and solar. Tell that to the people living check to check.
Is it possible for this group of commenters to be more ignorant? Ever heard of solar panels on the roof to charge your electric car? The UN will pass more climate agreements at the big conference in December. It won't be enough to reverse global warming right away. But it is a start. Your opinions arguing outside the relm of science will go down in history like the ignorant mob who wanted to burn Galileo. Remember my voice in 20 years when your grandchildren ask you what you did to prevent global warming. There are thousands of peer reviewed research papers on the subject just google something like "global warming peer reviewed journal" and click on something that floats your boat. The abstracts are free to read. Wake up sheeple. And buy GRN lol. Not with an 11 handle though. Wow that chart is hot!
"Ever heard of solar panels on the roof to charge your electric car?"
Sorry, solar panels are manufactured using lots of energy; I suppose that might be hydropower or geothermal, but if they're made in China I doubt that. Also, they may use a fair amount of rare earth metals and / or silver; do you think mining is done with renewable energy? Might want to check on how solar panels are made, and how long it takes for them to generate enough power to pay off the fossil fuels used to make them.
unlike conventional electricity generation methods (Eg.coal/natty), once manufactured, delivered and installed the pollution to energy production ratio (not to mention ROI) of solar panels and wind turbines becomes essentially a function of their longevity.IE the longer they last the closer that ratio gets to zero (unlike conventional electricity generators) with the only inputs during the lifespan of their service coming from maintenance (also unlike conventional electricity generators). And thanks to simplicity of design and operation (wind turbines) and/or lack of moving parts (solar panels) both last a LONG time. Naturally with such comparatively nascent (and suppressed) tech the initial cap-ex is high for now, but, as you concede, on a long enough timeline.... Geothermal fits in here too. As do wave/tidal systems
Again, massive fail. I was asking if anyone here has done the NUMBERS, how many kW of (probably conventional) energy were used to make solar cells and panels that only produce how many kW of solar energy; what actually IS the payout period, in terms of how long it takes (at half a day less cloud cover less obstructions and dirt / particulate reductions less .....) to recover that energy investment? And just how long DO solar cells last?
You do realize that high winds above design make operators SHUT WIND TURBINES DOWN to prevent damage? Geothermal is so rare as to be negligible in the US? Wave / tidal systems as well? ALL the renewable energy currently generated amounts to what, less than 5% of the total? And none except geothermal qualify for baseload service (what with the sun being down at night, the wind being variable and the waves / tides as well)?
IF unicorns could power windmills, you might have some kind of argument here. As it is, you have posted trivial useless nonsense. Enjoy your darkness, but quit spreading it around!
Since you're incapable, I went looking to answer my own question, and found:
"
HighlightsSource: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024813004455
Oooh, what maintenance costs? No installation, operation or end-of-life [demolition, recycling] costs either? Does better data exist somewhere?
See, this borders on research: looking for information because you haven't already assumed that solar panels last forever, and ROI can only increase forever. If you can, learn from example; if not, enjoy your darkness.
If you really wanted to know ~ how long solar panels and wind turbines (the ones designed and built a quarter century ago, anyway) actually last, why not try researching "how long do solar panels last?"
or "how long do wind turbines last?"
Now reference that conservatively estimated longevity with what you have discovered and get back to us on those ratios (ROI and pollution/kwh)
As for the red herring salad,
"You do realize that high winds above design make operators SHUT WIND TURBINES DOWN to prevent damage? Geothermal is so rare as to be negligible in the US? Wave / tidal systems as well? ALL the renewable energy currently generated amounts to what, less than 5% of the total? And none except geothermal qualify for baseload service (what with the sun being down at night, the wind being variable and the waves / tides as well)?"
Hunh? It's not much of an argument to say "because we aren't currently using this tech very much, therefore it can't be used very much."
Grow a brain, LetThemEatRand. It's called playing the devil's advocate. If most people believe that global warming is "bad", then those who want to awaken them need to get them to question whether it might not actually be "good", or how we know. Arguing that it's actually good is an effective way to challenge people to think about it more deeply, whether one actually ultimately believes it's good or not. The point that's actually trying to be communicated is that it's a much more complex issue that most people haven't adequately thought about, researched, or put in a historical perspective.
Remember that "good" or "bad" is actually a matter of personal perspective. Everything is good for some people and bad for others.
Does it really matter whether one person thinks global warming would be good or not? Not unless they can convince the rest of us, or are in a position of influence. I happen to think global warming would be good because I dislike -30C winters, but I understand if you dislike +40C summers and therefore think it would be bad. (Suck it, I'm releasing as much carbon as I can!)
In the case of climate change, the amount of variables are so large that it's difficult to grasp all the consequences. I'm certain that there will be both good and bad consequences for everyone.
So please tell us, why is it "just idiotic" to suggest that global warming could be good? Is that against your beliefs? Did I miss a decree from God about it? Can you at least admit that there could be good things about some degrees of global warming, such as better growing seasons at high lattitudes?
Some areas will benefit from climate change. Some areas will not. The belief that one minor variable (CO2) can be extrapolated to predict the weather is not only naive but it is ludicrous. I agree with:
"I happen to think global warming would be good because I dislike -30C winters, but I understand if you dislike +40C summers and therefore think it would be bad. (Suck it, I'm releasing as much carbon as I can!)."
However in my case I'm releasing methane in LetThemEatRand's general direction -- causing 40X as much warming as CO2.
(Even more if you light it)
Regards
Doc
The End Is Near, run for your lives! In only 2 billion years the sun will engulf and Earth and destroy us all!
Mr. EatRand
You're possibly the smartest warming quack on this forum.
Likewise, you're possibly also the smartest two thumb iPhone typist on this forum.
I predict that you're going to grow up to be something special someday.
LTER ("global warming is a real thing"): without getting in all the arguments, when in doubt, one can ask, cui bono? Who is set to gain from imposing a global tax on carbon dioxyde? i.e. a tax more ubiquitous than a tax on water. A tax that would mean that, definitely, humans would be born with a massive debt towards the collectors.
Does it require more energy to heat or to cool a home?
There is no pivot to "Global Warming is good".
What is being said is that our human civilization does better in warmer times than colder times. It is much easier to flourish when crops are good, your bellies are full and less energy is being spent trying to stay warm and survive. I don't see many ancient wonders from the last ice age, but quite a number from around the Mediterranean. Wonder why? Our civilization exists solely as a result of the availability of a cheap (relatively) supply of efficient energy. That's it. that's all.
What I see with my own eyes is exactly what is written in the article. There have been fewer and less storms. There is no increase in ocean levels beyond what has been going on since the end of the last ice age. There has been a hiatus in temperature increases even with an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from 3 parts per million to 4 parts per million. (If anyone really believes that CO2 is bad at these levels, please stop breathing. It's the right thing to do). ALL OF THE MODELS have been unable to predict what we are seeing in actual data. Agencies have been adjusting and modifying the past temperature data downward, in much the same way that governments have been modifying the calculation of inflation. Fudging is fudging and it doesn't change the reality.
Given the choice between a small amount of gas necessary for all life (where do you think any oxygen anyone or anything breathes comes from - it's not being made out of thin air. It comes from the photosynthesis of plants using CO2 to produce Oxygen), and a giant ball of nuclear fire nearby in space, my money is on that ball of fire as being the source of any planetary temperature change.
i
It's serious.
And . . .
the "cheap supply of efficient energy" is a consequence of capitalism.
Destroy capitalism, eliminate cheap abundant energy, and 6 billion people starve.
Those relationships in your last sentence are not causal, neither is the supply of cheap efficient energy a result of capitalism alone; also bear in mind that the record indicates that wholly unmitigated capitalism eventually destroys itself by increasingly concentrating wealth/power
as with most such "public debates" today-the substance hinges on the preservation of a government subsidy provided
in the expectation of an outcome useful to the extension of federal power.
Anyone getting in the way of that end can be expected to be labeled a "terrorist"
I suspect those upvoting you just did not read carefully enough.
"but the pivot to "global warming is good" is just idiotic"It is ABSOLUTELY true that civilisations flourish under warmer climates, See Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. As counter to this, take the Little Ice Age when Europe suffered a dramatic cold spell, thought to have resulted in the deaths of millions, which includes 30-60% of Europes population in the Black death.
http://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences
And another AGW trougher signing the RICO letter:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/big-bucks-for-a...
You're a moron, or you haven't read this subject enough.
Yes, humankind has actually flourished when the temperatures were 2+ degrees C warmer than now. That is a fact, and no amount of "That must be propaganda" wailing by the likes of you will change it.
Humans need food to live and grow in population.
Food comes ultimately from plants, which need sunshine, warmth, and CO2 as food.
Most of the land area above 45 degres north at current world temperatures has a seriously curtailed growing season, not due so much to sunlight, but due to cold.
A warmer earth opens up those areas for growth of crops.
HENCE, yes, humankind actually BENEFITS from a warmer earth.
Dumbass.
Earth warming a bit isn't something to fret, the earth going into a cooling mode (growing crops) is a much bigger potential problem
In the span of a mere 40 years we went from ...OMG we are freezing....to OMG we are burning....to OMG we are "changing". As though we have never changed before? LOL And the assertion that CO2 is a pollutant is utter nonsense. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas (only .04% of atmosphere BTW) we breathe out and plants use to make lunch. They base all this off of models and almost every one they put forth has been wrong, even with fraudulantly changing data. This is ALL agenda driven, not data driven.
Anyone that denies that we are fucking up the environment has their head up their a**. It's not just 97% of the scientists saying it. You can see it happening around you.
You deniers are gonna mess up the banksters new carbon credit ponzi scheme.
Whats gonna take the place of the ponzi petro dollar scam when it finally collapses ?
Ever think of that ?
People just don't think these things through, Hard....
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/08/08/chicago-exchange-closure-drives-...
Look Green Biz reporting the Chicago Climate exchange closed, darn I was hoping to load up on shorts.. But climate change isn't a politico/crony/business no, no way...
Yup.
Z O M B I E E M P I R E
Wow ZH, reposting crap from conspiracy theorists spouting arguments rather than discussing the science. Way to lower your standards. Disappointed.
Since you refuse to read, hear someone speak:
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Watch the whole series
Dude...
You just don't know okay? Can you accept that other reasonably intelligent people have an 'educational' background different than yours? Can you accept that intelligent, thoughtful, ethical...HAPPY human beings prefer to be free?
HAVE LIBERTY?
Ever think of that?
What does liberty have to do with this argument? High on a Friday night, good move. Pass the weed please, sir, lol.
Advisor to the Pope, Naomi Klein said, “Forget everything you think you know about global warming. It’s not about carbon — it’s about capitalism.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…"
yeah "how we redistribute..." as in not you. There is quite a bit more of this if you care to investigate, however, your mind seems made-up. On the sciencey side would you try to predict the temperature in Iowa city tomorrow based on the temperture implied by sediments in the Great Lakes? If you answer, yes, you may be a climate scientist.
This really is an excellent series of vids. Produced by someone who is trying to cut through the alarmist bullshit on BOTH sides, and encourage people to do their own, critical, thinking. A+. You'll learn something regardless of your current opinion. LOL, look at that sea of red, ouch.
What is a 'conspiracy theorist'...?
Someone who thinks. And dares speaks in a fashion threatening to the overseeing mind control
An invention of PSYOPS working for the CIA way back when in the 50s before I was born. They planned all this 'conspiracy theory' discourse too. It's fun stuff you must admit.
"Let my biographers chafe". Sigmund Freud
It's a slide word...courtesy of the CIA
http://dablog.rubypal.com/2008/6/7/slide-words-if-that-s-really-what-the...
Think of them as the early spores of Newspeak
here you go dickead or should I say govt troll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
Climate change is real,it's always changing.I'm sure the cavemen were panicking when it started to warm up after the ice age
Actually we are still in the latest of 5 major ice ages on earth. In which there have been 11 known periods of glaciation. We currently live in what is refered to as a warm interglacial period. And drum roll please, eventually it will swing the other way starting the next period of glaciation.
There is no normal in the climate. It shifts and changes constantly. We cannot predict its behavior. If we could the weatherman on tv would be right a lot more.
Why do they keep screaming "science" when they don't use it.
Apparently these believers have forgotten the hacked emails a few years back where their government "scientists" were colluding to manipulate the temperatures and other data. My My,,, what short memories!
"The caste of climate alarmists reminds us strongly of assorted doomsayers throughout history." -author (Pater Tenebrarum)
Indeed. There is no room for doomsayers on ZH, as everyone knows.
Most of this article is an ad hominem attack on certain scientists, or paints them all with a broad, dramatic brush as "Stalinists" (whatever that means).
ZeroHedge, go back to reporting on the financial markets.
Weekend Tylers don't like the whole climate change thing.
You two can go elsewhere if you want. No one is holding a gun to your head...yet.
I prefer to stay here and annoy you. You can leave too.
Watch your back. You never know where I will turn up or what I will do. I don't need to leave. I have done business with ZHer's. You?
I'll be careful not to drop the soap with you around.
Most of us don't like you either Rand but as a contrary social indicator you unconsciously bring value, stick around, vomit your agenda, we will read the entrails..
Good point.
Did somebody say drop the soap?