The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead. It has been falsified. It has run smack bang into a â€œnull hypothesis.â€ It has met its Waterloo. It has bought the farm. It has gone for a Burton. It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible.Â Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist.
Eschenbach wrote his post in response to a bizarre speech prepared by Dr Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which he intended to deliver to the American Meteorological Society. Trenberth is the arch-warmist perhaps best known for writing the Climategate email which went:
The fact is that we canâ€™t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canâ€™t.
When Trenberthâ€™s speech was pre-published on the internet it caused something of a stir, both for the way large chunks of it had been taken almost verbatim from another scientist and for its use six times of the word â€œdenierâ€. (Thanks to some kindly advice proferred by Steve McIntyre, Trenberth has now significantly altered his speech. â€œDeniersâ€ has been altered to â€œsceptics.â€ Probably quite sensibly since many in the AMS, being meteorologists rather than â€œclimate scientistsâ€ tend very much to fall into the sceptic camp).
What Eschenbach focuses on, though, is Trenberthâ€™s absurd demand that the â€œnull hypothesisâ€ on AGW theory be reversed. That is, instead of having to prove AGW exists, what people should now be required to prove that it doesnâ€™t exist. (!)
Reality is a harsh mistress. But grown-ups need to deal.
Your right. I “deal” the cards, not by listening to others like you to tell me what reality is in your unrealistic world. Reality is dealing with life as it exists and changing it for the betterment of myself and my respective family, not how you want all to be. We are not here to better your family out of our pocket, that is your job. If you wish to change it, go ahead. Eqypt is an example. Do you wish to go that route? Not I. You don’t know how nice you have it until it is gone and I doubt you will ever understand.
You continue to make nonsensical assumptions about me, or anyone else for that matter, who you feel threatened by. The real threat is NOT “entitlements” or poor people, or disabled people, or sick people. I’ve been trying to teach you who and what the real threat is. It is you who will apparently never undertand. You and yours idolize the wealthy and the elite. You want to be like them, accepted by them, etc. That will never happen unless you become a mutli-millionarie or billionaire. And even then maybe you wouldn’t. It is a very private club, more or less. And you think they have your best interests in mind, that they got your back, so to speak. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you and I were Egyptians we’d be on opposing sides. I would be with the protesters, the average people, and against the current government. You’d most likley be with the anti-protesters on the governments side, fighting against people like me. Is that accurate do you think?
Ron- the facts are not on your side. The wealthy do purchase things, but mostly they do not- they save. It is the middle and lower classes who spend it in the communities in which they live. Please don’t come here with cherry picked “facts” and expect to be found credible (except by other kool-aid drinkers). Another example is that the wealthy create jobs. Where are they creating these jobs Mr. Texas? Not here or there. They are shipping them overseas. And I am open-minded about just about everythig including the AGW thing. Are you? On that issue, the majority of the world’s scientists say it’s real. Far be it for me to disagree with them. But time will tell, won’t it? Taxes end up with who now? Not who you say… they pay for roads, etc etc.etc. and spread around all over the country, even helps create jobs. And tax-breaks end up with who? Yep, the self-important tyrants, that’s who. Your right-wing talking points are pretty darn stale, as usual, and the opposite of reality, as usual.
Boy, do you understand? You will “teach me”?? People don’t idolize wealth, they want to earn it!! Look at lotto sales. They don’t want to invest sweat equity, they want their number picked. The protestors are the one’s that want to earn it and have been stifled in
eqypt for years. Direct opposite from what you state. You still do not get it nor will you………ever!
Sure Paul- you’d be with the rabble protesting the status quo. To make BIG significant changes (hopefully). You and yours generally like the status quo, do you not? You’re making money, for something not back-breaking. You got a house, a cabin, cars, other toys. Yeah, you’d be willing to rick all that, and maybe your life too, at the drop of a hat, to join with the”radicals”, the long-hairs, the “hippys”, the homeless, the poor, the Liberals… Nope. I’m not buying the load you’re selling.
You say you don’t or didn’t support Mubarak…?! Where oh where were all you Conservatives all those years he’s been our dictator there… hmmmm? Where were all the loud and angry Conservative protests for the poor average folks of Egypt….? I thought so.
Where were the liberal/democrat Presidents over the last 30 years? First, you know nothing about my background and as to back breaking work? Been there done that. Yes I have a house and cabin that I paid for with the money I legally earned and worked hard to obtained them. Doesn’t everyone? Oops, that’s right. Everyone is “entitled” to have what their neighbor has accummulated over a lifetime correct? I have heard freinds of mine ask me how I did it! Simple answer. You work for it! Suggest you do same and quit chastising people that work all their lives fot the betterment of their family, not their next door neighbors. From you consistent posts I know why we have the entitlement problems today. You are proof positive.
Like I said elsewhere Paul, I am not after what you have. I work hard too, as I’ve pointed out. In fact, I am one of the 10% of Minnesotans who work more than one job. I figure that might be a conservative number, but that’s what was in the paper today. You are simply hypocritical when you, and yours, talk about “entitlements.” It’s a red herring and a right-wing talking point, that’s all. I would find you, and yours, much more credible about the subject if you were to refuse your “entitlements” now or in the future (Soc Sec) and/or if you were to give it all to a charity of your choice. You are a hypocrite- THAT is my point, you and 99.99 % of all other wing-nuts and Rightys. What is it about that fact that you can simply ignore and spout off on all that you do? Amazing disconnect there. No cognitive dissonance for you folks, I guess. Unless of course you take it out on your dog or something…
Those that pay into something are entitled to get what they were forced to pay. I, as others had no choice to opt out of SS period. Bush got blasted for bringing the subject up about investing a certain portion that you could take. Liberals hated it. I will take back what they took from me. Entitlement is something you get for nothing. You have no understanding of that theory do you.
Paul, I’m sorry to have to instruct you re: logic and reasoning. 1. You can give it away (you won’t will you?) 2. HOW IS INVESTING “your” money make this “entitlement” NOT an entitlement?
Liberals didn’t want any money diverted to investments (legalized gambling), because there are too many chances that it will be lost to crashes, or criminal behavior by our sainted “financial advisors.” Plain and simple. Liberals use logic and reason. Not knee-jerk propaganda orders by their leaders.
Soc. Sec. for the elderly and seriously disable has been a VERY successful program and has been copied, for that reason, by many other countries around the world.
Other than Soc. Sec. what entitlements are you referring to? Please I’d like ot know. You and other Rightys are OBESSESSED about this “issue.” Enlighten me.
“Liberals use logic and reasoning.” What have you been smoking? Oh that’s right. They, the liberals like you will probably ban outdoor fires. What do you tell you child about lack of Smores? That’s right, you will blame global warming, climate change and the conservatives. Sitting around a campfire with you must be a joy. Oops, not allowed in your family I assume?
You’ve touched on something there. Liberals seem to want to ban anything that can foster self-sufficiency. Heirloom seeds (non-genetically engineered seeds that produce plants with fertile seeds), homegrown food, farmers markets, fire, cars. Meanwhile, they promote government dependence. Welfare, trains, “approved” power (and less of it because it has to be rationed), huge agribusiness, etc.
It seems that the “primitaves” like wood burning and simple electric lights that have been staples of human survival and society have to go, in favor of more complex systems that can only exist on a mass scale. If we allow ourselves to become entirely dependent on the government and these complex systems (internet connected refrigerators?), and disaster strikes, we’ll be super screwed.
Reality to Paul: some towns out west mostly, and probaly east too, have already banned wood fires. Why? Cuz it causes much problems for people who need to breathe clean air. AND it is unnecessary, just a luxury for most people- it’s nice to cuddle up to a fire- I love it too. But in dense areas it does become a health hazard.
And Paul- what I just typed is an example of logic and reasoning, in both the fire banning and my response to your usual juvenile-like post. If you work on it you too may engage in such dialogue someday.
Paul you didn’t answer my question. WHAT “ENTITLEMENTS” ARE YOU REFERRING TO? Please- I’d really like to know. You and yours talk about this ALL THE TIME. I need to know an answer to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dan? You response below doesn’t make that much sense to me, and doesn’t really answer this quesiton. Please try again.
Dan what you say about Liberals is false, for the most part. I don’t know if you truly believe that or if you are just walking the goose-step of most Rightys.
And, again, with all due respect, your simplistic nostagia for the past is quaint and all, but so childish as to be almost infantile. Most of us, I conjecture, would like to “go back” to a simpler time, and be more self sufficient. I would like that too. I actually lead a pretty simple life. No TV in my house for one thing. And that brings us something else- you decry modern things, and yet here we are on the internet. You Libertarians are so hypocritical it makes me choke sometimes. And yes, the internet is wonderful, and will remain that way until the government takes control of it. Hopefully that till never happen. And guess what? Most Liberals agree with me about that. Gosh- a dent in your all-Liberals-love-big government propaganda… oops, sorry for that.
If we ever do got back to those simpler times, Dan, I don’t think you’d like it as much as you pretend.
No. I don’t decry modern things. I’m not a luddite – I like technology but recognize the danger of dependence. We need to keep around some of the simpler things that are staples of survival and society. Banning older technology is crazy. One nuke detonated high in the atmosphere could wipe out the electronics of an entire metro area. Even new cars would stop working, but cars with distributor caps instead of electronic ignition would keep running.
Dan, you are right. We all are so dependent on the internet, I-phones, et al that if worse case scenario there is no more internet we are all screwed. My land lines are disconnected and I live on wi-fi for my business as well as personal. Shut that sucker down and my cabin up north looks very inviting with a fire outdoors at the fire pit as well a fireplace inside. Enough firewood for a year plus. By the way, I have my old lights, candles available and fish and hunt the area. Let’s all hope the past does not become the “future.”
Maybe Dan isn’t so lucky to be a remote land owner like yourself. No wonder you act so cocky all the time. You feel quite smug about it. And yes I am jealous about that. I would like to have that, not that I want to take yours away from you.
In that Mad Max post-collpase world we all dread and yet love to fantasize about, do you, Paul, or anyone here, really believe that the people that might come to your property looking for food and everything else you have tucked away including your cabin- do you think they would be a group of heavily armed and blood-thristy Liberals? Or would they most likely be some other group/type of people? Just wondering. Your thoughts?
waiting… c’mon any of your Rightys can try and answer this, if Saint Paul won’t…
What thoughts? I speak fact, you envy. Very simple.
Remember one thing Rob, In dire times never ever try to corner a Scot. They are your worst enemy especially in defending themselves as well as family. As to people coming after? Years ago 5 drunks with 30-06’s came out of nowhere and we had a real good time, or should I say I did. Circa 1986. I don’t worry about things until I have to deal with them and I did. Hopefully it never happens again and haven’t seen them since. Poor boys. Should
not have been drinking.
Well, you really didn’t answer my question. You evaded it mostly. Were those yahoos Liberals do you think? Nobody knows, so I guess it’s a rhetorical question. But still we could speculate about it. For example, on what end of the political spectrum do most gun owners fall?
silence… crickets chirping in the background… more silence…
Never asked for their political persuasion, simply dealt with the situation. Half my gun owning friends are Democrats, not that it even matters and are members of the NRA. Is that a problem? I guess for a “Progressive,” it is. Stay in your house and keep warm with your “blankie.”
So you sort of answered the question, kicking and screaming as usual, so I guess thanks for that. Your half Democrat gun-owning buddies would be above the norm, obviously. So once again you evade the point being made, but you really know the true answer. Or maybe not. With you it’s hard to tell.
Next question is a bit more difficult, but obvious if one is being truthful. Which group of people, those on the Right or those on the Left endorse violence and/or being well-armed as the ultimate answer to most of life’s big problems?
To clarify my question: I’m talking about Americans, not anyone else. (As I pointed out elsewhere, and was shot down for it of course, the only real possible military threat right now that I think is worthy of our attention is China, and they being “Communist”/Left, demonstrates that, yes, the far Left also relies on a large and well-armed military.
It seems to me that the left in this country love foreign militaries but hate our own. It’s almost like the leftists want the US taken over by a foreign power – in particular a communist one. Communism universally equals misery for the people, so I’m constanty baffled by the American left’s embrace of it. Must come from some kind of self-loathing.
Left wingers love the military only when their lives/agendas are at major risk and they need to have some serious protection and then they kiss our cherished sons and daughters backside. Once the major threat is gone, the military is then to them a threat and not needed any longer. Go figure. I never could, nor ever will. Serious contradition.
You are both incorrect, and merely peddling the same old right-wing propaganda about what the “Left” is. We do support a country’s people to self-govern, i.e. democracy. As for any oppressive military, no we do not support that, and never will. For example, when our military is placed somewhere to intentionally interfere with the democratic process, then naturally we speak out against it. You should be doing the same- you spout platitudes about our own revolution, and yet turn your backs on others who want to do the same. I call that hypocrisy. The BIGGEST problem with the right, I am convinced, is Hypocrisy. You are simply unable to recognize the severity of that problem within yourselves, and many things apparently become confusing to you as a result, such as your “bafflement” of the Left. You should not be baffled by anything the Left believes in. As a “freedom loving” person it should come natually to you as well. There is something blocking it in the Right, and hypocrisy is probably the biggest blockage, but also probably not the only blockage to overcome.
And you will block it?
Impossble to respond to such an odd reponse. My next post is just in anticipation of some stale untrutful comments about Liberals.
And no, Liberals are not anarchist (there is no other kind) Libertarians. So, yes, Liberals believe in responsible and reasonable laws and regulation. Including funding for enforcement of said laws and regulations.
Robin Hood, indeed. Talk about truth in a name.Robin Hood was a socialist who robbed people to give to others. What would he do once some of the poor people became “rich”? Rob them, too? Like Obama’s empire of socialism, they would now be deemed as “rich” and subject to the heavy taxation. Yes, there are abuses among people with lots of money. Is that a reason to deny people the chance to make and keep their own money? And is Robin Hood wise enough to decide who should be rich and who should not be (rich)? Sounds like he is playing god, being a dictator in his own way. And if the money he took, which was private property, is no longer private property, than how can he assign private ownership of that stolen money to a new recipient? It fails on basic logic, as usual.
The wealthy people left alone spend money on things and people make money selling them things. Trickle down is a misnomer. It’s more like leak everywhere. The crews I manage (in an industry of providing electrical power and control for swimming pools and spas) can make over $300 a day when the “wealthy” are spending on “luxuries.” That’s direct, baby. These guys can make more than I do in a day.
Or a wealthy person can invest. And that money is invested in companies that now have the cash flow to create jobs and hire people. Believe it or not, money never sits idle. How is the wealthy person retaining his money? He can’t. It’s in banks and investments everywhere. Or in my pocket providing him services and products. The only way he could “retain” all that money is to have it in cash buried in the back yard. But if you take it away through taxes, it doesn’t get to the workers or anyone else. It gets mostly to the self-important tyrants who tell people what they cannot do. Some of it makes it to the crackhead down the street who refuses to get a job because it gets in the way of smoking crack.
But so many that want to support the fiat CAGW theory are self-defined socialists and control freaks who want to use this as a vehicle to power. You can’t get much more tyrannical than taxing people for breathing.
Ron- the facts are not on your side. The wealthy do purchase things, but mostly they do not- they save. It is the middle and lower classes who spend it in the communities in which they live. Please donâ€™t come here with cherry picked â€œfactsâ€ and expect to be found credible (except by other kool-aid drinkers). Another example is that the wealthy create jobs. Where are they creating these jobs Mr. Texas? Not here or there. They are shipping them overseas. And I am open-minded about just about everythig including the AGW thing. Are you? On that issue, the majority of the worldâ€™s scientists say itâ€™s real. Far be it for me to disagree with them. But time will tell, wonâ€™t it? Taxes end up with who now? Not who you sayâ€¦ they pay for roads, etc etc.etc. and spread around all over the country, even helps create jobs. And tax-breaks end up with who? Yep, the self-important tyrants, thatâ€™s who. Your right-wing talking points are pretty darn stale, as usual, and the opposite of reality, as usual.
The Republicans are not engaging in deficit reduction, they are fomenting a political civil/class war based on an ideology that is radical and extreme compared not only to generations of Democrats, but to generations of the most respected Republicans who never proposed anything like what Republicans are proposing today.
Just watch the House Republicans, voting in rapid fire on amendments they could not have had the time to read, attacking one program after another in a campaign that will destroy jobs America needs.
This is not a war against deficits, it is a war against collective bargaining, a war against job-creating programs, a war against the very idea of government creating jobs.
In many cases this is a war against policies that help women, a war against pay equity for women, a war against new jobs for women and a war against poor women and their daughters and sons.
In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, under pressure from what was called the conservative coalition of that time, supported cutbacks in spending that caused a relapse of Depression-era conditions at the very moment the economy was recovering (fact). Republicans would repeat that disastrous mistake today (happily).
There are plenty of good ways to lower the deficit, but destroying jobs with ideologically extreme attacks on programs that create jobs is a disastrous attack of epic and historic proportions.
The Republican Speaker might say “so be it” when jobs are destroyed, but a program that would destroy a million jobs is bad for workers, bad for jobs and bad for America.
“So ya hate republicans Do ya?, ” (A lefty Democrat recently asked me this question to join him in Madison). From Texas, California, Illinois, doesn’t matter unless you cannot take time off from work like it seems the union organizers and members can with pay. Not the average person. Life is choices just like when you accept employment. If you don’t like the benefits quit and get another.