New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tends to now show that ice melt estimates previously calculated for Greenland have not significantly accelerated- as has been previously postulated- nor has the melt contributed in a meaningful way to the rise of sea levels.
Recently, much of the destruction on the east coast as a consequence of Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore was blamed on the rise in sea-levels, which have been blamed on…drum roll…global warming.
The newest revelation, amongst many in the last several years that have muffled the global warming chants of “settled science, settled science, settled science,” confirms that the model generally used to support climate change, global warming and/or Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore, is neither settled nor scientific.
Read the rest at: Townhall.com
From MSN today… “This improved certainty allows us to say definitively that both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing ice,” lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in Britain, told reporters. Not only that, but the pace has tripled from the 1990s, the data indicate.
Combining satellite data from dozens of earlier studies, the study “shows that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have contributed just over 11 millimeters (0.4 inches) to global sea levels since 1992,” he added. Two-thirds was from Greenland, a third from Antarctica.
What you have posted is a metadata study. A metanalysis of past studies that the new study is saying are wrong. This is the point of the story. It is saying that all of the other studies have been wrong, and if you follow the links it shows the actual math and analysis that they used. I posted it because it goes against the orthodox view that Antartica, and the Greenland ice is melting at an alarming rate. Do I know if it is going to stand up to peer review, and repeat studies? No I don’t. But it is scientists studying the ice, saying something that is not the usual conclusion from other studies. They appearantly take things into account that the others have not. Let the scientific process do it’s thing, and see where it leads. That is what science is.
Off the subject (sorry). Two must reads for all Americans: Give Me Liberty by Gerry Spence, and Who Will Tell the People by William Greider.
Oh! Books from a trial lawyer, and a journalist. Next you’ll be recommending Chomsky no doubt. Maybe you’d like to post some recipies for glazed duck, or a nice vege salad bowl. Or maybe some pet grooming tips? Oh, I know, let’s gossip about the Kardashians! Or, maybe you can give us your opinion on the latest fashion trends?
No, gossip about the Kardashians and fashion trends I believe would be far too cerebral an exercise for Mr. Hood.
Wow dude. Literature a sore spot for some personal reason? All Americans, especially those who claim to care about democracy and/or freedom would benefit from reading at least one of those books. That is one proven method of being educated- reading. A dying art in many ways apparently. You might be surprised by what’s in those books. But nevermind, you who declare others to be close-minded and unable to entertain new ideas/thoughts. Like I’ve said, hypocrisy is a very embarrassing habit to be afflicted with, or should be. I didn’t even tell you, or anyone for that matter, what they should think about what is written in those books. That is for the reader to decide on his/her own.
See how he does that folks? What a set up! First he posts something that he knows full well is a peeve of mine. Well, not that the subject is a peeve, but that it is not a subject or topic that is an issue here at globalclimatescam.com. And he knows full well that I am going to make a comment about that. So I do. And what is his reply? He asks if literature is a sore spot for me. Huh? Then he goes on to say that I have declared others to be closed minded and unable to entertain new thoughts and ideas. Huh? When? And in pure Liberal form he has decided that all Americans should read these books. Who is he to decide that? I, for one, have no desire to read either one of these books. It’s not that I don’t care. It’s that I can guess what a trial lawyer, who has spent a carreer convincing juries that the system is stacked against his clients, is going to say about the system. And I can guess what a journalist, a very Liberal journalist, is going to say about economics, and that in the end it’s all going to be the fault of capitalism. That’s a no-brainer.
Many’s the frivolousness that peeeves Sir Neil. His ego only surpasses the delicacy of his pure sensibilities. The books I recommended do in fact relate in a more deep manner the issue of AGW, as with many “issues” of the day that keeep us all busy fighting back and forth. Not that it isn’t real or not important in and of itself, quite the contrary. However, it is not an issue in a vacuum. Even Neil has posted things here about power, freedom, truth, manipulation, political gamesmanship, etc. That is all the books are basically about, and that is what helps feeds sites like this and our angst. With regard to Neil’s adolescent obsession with safe-guarding capitalism, well, that is a remnant and artifact of the Cold War which has long been laid to rest, except in the paranoid hearts and minds of those afflicted with left-over childhood brainwashing.
And one more thing that neeeeds to be addressed. I could only dream (feverishly) to know what is in all books without reading them, not even their dust jackets. That Neil can accomplish this must negate all book lernin’ fools like me, as well as pretty much anyone else on this mortal planet. I was ill-informed about Neil’s immortal abilities, thus do I stand corrected. Hint regarding those subversive books for those mortals who might be interested: Democrat politicians are now as guilty as the Right ones of sustaining a broken and unfair system, of which the majority of citizens are taken advantage of.
Well, have you read the books? Is my guess not accurate? And I never said it was anything more than a guess. Though protesteth too mucheth, methinks.
I don’t have to read a book to know what is in it. That’s what reviews are for. Here is one from a reader named Jason Ranew, who bought it at Amazon:
Well, being a great admirer of Spence’s courtroom techniques and dramatics (I am a third year law student), I must say that I was profoundly disappointed with this latest book. Spence’s radical ideas undermine what America is all about–freedom, opportunity, limited government, and free markets. Ironically, if Spence’s ideas were implemented, there would be no liberty in America. The book is laced with brilliantly disguised notions of communism, socialism, statism, fascism, egalatarianism, determinism, and a hodgepodge of other ideas opposed to the American way. Spence would be a great candidate to run on the Nader ticket in 2004. Just for funsies, let’s cut to the chase and address his criticism of the “corporation.” Ask yourself, what IS a corporation? A corporation is merely a business association that is subject to the laws of the relevant state. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s just a business…a business that creates jobs, puts food on the tables of millions, and creates wealth for the economy at large. The vast majority of Americans employed by corporations wouldn’t have it any other way. The corporation is American as apple pie, and it creates wealth, and for the millions whose livelihood depends upon the corporation, it creates freedom (dare I say, liberty?) in addition to prosperity. In short, Spence’s radical ideas, while creative, do not comport with reality. He should stick with his specialty: courtroom dramatics and six figure jury verdicts.
That tells me all I need to know about what is in that book. Why would I want to read it?
All this is doing is distracting from the issue at hand. Here is Gerry Spence on climate change.
“A Nuclear Holocaust and Burning to Death in Climate Warming are tricky little twins who have one ultimate goal — the extermination of the human race. Holocaust is impatient and wants to get it done and over with. Climate Warming, let us call him, Charboy, takes its time and gloats at the decades of human misery it will impose before it manages the final extinction of the species by roasting.”
And what about Greider? Well if you can find what he thinks about climate change, you let me know because I can’t find anything he’s said about it. Although, I did read somewhere that he thinks unlimited money should be spent to save even one tree, which is a clue to what he thinks about climate change.
That’s very nice. The books are about the deeper crisis effecting this country namely that which also effects everything else including debates such as global warming. I didn’t know Gerry Spence’s feelings about it nor do I care. He could be a skeptic for all I care. His book is excellent and would speak to Libertarians everywhere, not just to a Liberal like me. But you don’t need to read it as it would be a waste of your time. I was actually speaking to anyone who may be reading this little backwater of a site. You take this site personally which is your right, but it reduces your credibility and your palatability. Spence actually provides concrete ideas about how to make this country strong again, but nevermind Sir Neilio, you don’t really want to change anything. Your delusions and fantasies will sustain you with impotent rage for a lifetime.
Perhaps you should look for a different blog to post those things upon then because this one is about global warming.
I’m not questioning the importance, or unimportance of the issues you bring up. If you want to bring up those issues in the context of global warming that’s fine. But you don’t. I believe you can’t without giving away that you believe in glabal warming, which is why you lash out at me having delusional fantasies, and impotent rage. You swear that you are still on the fence about AGW, yet on every other issue under the Sun you support those who advocate AGW. I mean come on! If it walks like a Duck, and talks like a Duck, is it not a Duck? How can I expect honesty from you if you can’t be honest with yourself?
You are quite the broken record. You can’t stand anyone who questions anything you believe, even to the extent of not exactly disagreeing with you but also not exactly agreeing with you. The reason my posts appear to be one-sided is that you and virtually all others posting here provide actual one-sided info, thus a little counter-point seems to me to be so weak as to be beyond threatening. Apparenty that is not the case. And before you criticize any book as being unrelated perhaps you should read it first before passing your sage judgment (I’d probably even settle for you reading the dust jacket). Otherwise deluded and impotent may be the accurate descriptors, for you.
If something that someone believes is contrary to what I believe, is it not my right to question it? As if I’m supposed to just believe what you believe because you believe it! You have never shown any curiosity as to what we believe. On the contrary. You have always sought to belittle, denegrate, and oppose what we believe.
Have you ever read any books by the following authors?:
Sean Hannity, Thomas Sowell, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, William John Bennett, Micheal Medved, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Dick Morris, Bernard Goldberg, William F. Buckly, David Freddoso, Mark Styn, Mike Huckabee, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Barry Goldwater, Michelle Malkin.
If not why? Could it be because they entail a philosophy that does not support your own? Would you want to read a book from one of these authors if I came on here and said that it’s a “must read for all Americans.”? Get real.
How can I expect you to believe what I believe when I’m not even sure myself? Wow, delusion…ego…rage. With re: those people you cite are well known extremist right-wingers and my guessing/knowing what they have to say is also well known based upon their previous exposure on TV and elsewhere, etc. Not to mention some if not many of them have been discredited intellectually or otherwise, William F. Buckley excluded, but my opinion of him is not that much unlike that of all the others you cite (partisan, dishonest, deluded, self-promoting, etc) Thus your comparison is an apples/oranges one, which you seem to attempt to do alot. But don’t let my logic and reason bother you too much, not that this has ever been a problem…
Plus my reading anything by those weirdos you list above was/is not the issue. Your attempt at side-track and deflection is just pathetic and crude.
You are too much. You know I’m right but you can’t admit it. So you say I’m delusional, egotistic, and full of rage, yet it seems to me that you are the one who is suffering from those things. And saying “reading anything by those weirdos you list above was/is not the issue. Your attempt at side-track and deflection is just pathetic and crude.” means that it was an exellent question and that you have no answer for it.
No, I am using logic and reason. I am fully aware you cannot abide by that, or cannot comprehend such concepts. Also, I answered you. As I always do regardless of your circular thinking and constant attack mode. That you don’t like my answers are, again, your right. But re-attacking me only proves my point once again ad-nauseum.
“Who Will Tell the People” (published in 1992, while Clinton was Prez, and it criticizes both political parties): A review by Business Week (not a Liberal entity by any means obviously) said “Comprehensive and compelling…For anyone who worries about democracy’s future.”
And voted one of the ten best books of 1992 by The New York Times Book Review.
Hodding Carter III: ” Part tough-minded reportage, part cleanly reasoned indictment and, from beginning to end, a clarion call to the American people to take back their government.”
And I actually slightly prefer Gerry Spence’s book because it provides such brilliant and achievable solutions to many of our problems. And it encapsulates pretty much my feelings exactly re: our current state of affairs, in case anyone cares. I mention this because it is fairly Libertarian, but not to the illogical extreme where many Libertarians seem to enjoy dwelling.
Yeah but, does it address climate change? I can appreciate that you are passionate about this. But as for the focus of this blog it is about climate change and related issues; If you can point out how it relates to climate change, great. If not, then go elsewhere. You are trying to make this about what you want, and in that respect I have to say I don’t care. This is not about you and what you want to address, it is about climate change, and related issues. Make a link or go away. Please!
I have explained this already, to your continued and indefatigable dissatisfaction, oh gate-keeper of the realm. To beat a dead horse: books such as these shed light on the deeper processes at work behind public opinion manipulation, behind the scenes power plays, the usurpation of ordinary citizen power, and the control of information, just to name a few. This site is only a small example of how this power game is played out- confuse everyone and muddy the waters so nothing real can been done either way. Is it the heavy hand of governments to force conservation on its people with the knowledge they have regarding the best of current scientific knowledge, or is it thee equally heavy hand of business to keep their profits going and to the maximum as long as possible. This AGW issue, like many others, are each a battle ground unto itself, keeping the people pre-occupied fighting little battles against eachother allowing the status quo, which is what the powers that be desire above all else. It is this nut we all need to crack together. Otherwise we all will cotninue to lose everything we believe is important, first and foremost personal freedom and liberty, not to mention justice.
I’m sorry. I guess I’m just confused then. The website name threw me off. Your issue is much bigger than mine, and therefore by default, much more important than the microcosmic battlefeild of AGW believers and skeptics. Thank you ever so much for pointing out how unimportant and miniscule the things that I care about are.
You know, I was being sarchastic there. But I think I’m onto something. That is precisely what your angle is. On the surface you appear to be so concerned with the world power brokers, and other such strawmen, and that it’s just so important that we should care as much about it as you do. But what you are really doing, and I think it’s what your mission here has always been, is minimizing AGW. It’s very clever and sophisticated. But I now see it for what it is. By introducing a supposedly much broader and compelling issue you are downplaying the AGW debate. Karl and Freidrich would be proud.
Paranoia will destroya. You can’t handle the truth, or honesty. And that therein lies a huge problem with the mentality on the Right. They want us to think small, and remain small.
By “they” I am referring to the elite. And your attibuting my supposed ulterior tactics to the authors of the Communist Manifesto is utterly ridiculous and depressing. I fail to see any connection even if I was using some tactic other than my own truth and honesty. Maybe you are an expert on it and know something about it I don’t. You may have been thinking of Saul Alinsky, so at least now you can attempt to blame the correct source for my non-existent machinations. But even he would and did, I believe, advocate for truth and facts as the ultimate weapons of choice. Be that as it may, the Right has perfected his shadier methods, either intentionally or not.
P.S. It is no longer a right or left battle- it is us against them, the global power brokers. To be manipulated by them, as we all are to differing extents, is the issue. No matter who is to blame in the past for allowing this situation to flourish it is now our job to work together, locally mainly, to regain that which we have already lost. It will be a long a difficult endeavor, so the sooner we start the better off our kids and grandkids will be.
Is not the UN one of the pillars of the new world order of which you speak? And is not AGW a big part of their scheme to create a one world government? I don’t understand why you are fighting us here on this site. You know that I have railed against the UN, and its green agenda. Guys like Maurice Strong, and Al gore are the kind of world power broker elites you are talking about! My fight here is actually helping your cause. You are taking on the wall, while I am taking on a brick in that wall. I hope to take out a cornerstone of it. while you are trying to take on the whole thing. If you accept that AGW is as big a problem as the UN says it is then you have no hope of success because AGW is the key to taking over the world. So AGW is not only a cornerstone it is also a keystone. You take that out and the whole foundation crumbles. You said it yourself, this is not a right or left issue so don’t let the fact that I’m a Conservative blind you to the fact that what I’m doing here might actually help with what you claim to want to do. The reason I have always been against you is because you have stated that you want America to be a Socialist nation. I do not. I believe in the Constitution and the founding of this country. But I do believe that we both want the country to stay a country and not become the North American Zone of World Order. Right?
Is the UN a pillar in your so-called (evidence?) one-world government? And is AGW a “big part of their scheme” (evidence?)? The elite I am referring to are higher up than Al Gore and are only interested in the greedy grab for more money/power. Al Gore may be interested in making money too, who isn’t? But that doesn’t make him some kind of new world order malefactor, although he may be (no evidence of this however). Your paranoia about a “one world government” has little or no credibility due to lack of evidence. Evidence is important to you is it not? This large boogeyman has replaced communism (almost) to control the Right, and others, but mostly those on the Right. And you are worried about being used and controlled…
Hey, I tried. I don’t believe in any of that stuff. I was just trying to humor your delusions. I do believe that the UN does plan on appointing itself as a world ruling body using AGW to scare people into going for it, but I don’t think that will pan out.
Oh, now we are talking about my delusions? Based on what, the logical questions above? And your evidence of your non-delusions re: the UN and a one world government are what again? Still waiting. But nevermind- I know none exists. They may be your OPINIONS, based on something, perhaps delusions/paranoia, but it is nothing else. You are entitled to your opinions, but to strike back at mere reasonable questions is just more of the same from you when cornered. I do agree that AGW is dying on the vine. One would think that if the great and powerful UN, plus the true global elite were behind some kind of grand scam, it wouldn’t be.
Ok. Who are these mysterious global power broker elites? Can you name them? Can you identify their positions? Can you describe exactly what they are doing to achieve their goals? I don’t think you can because they are a figment of a delusional pathology. They are the modern equivalent to pixies, fairies, withces, and the ogre under the bridge.
So you, once again, counter specific questions with very similar questions without answering your own? That is still a dodge and you know it. My answer to yours are the CEO’s and other top shareholders of all the global multinational companies around the world. I don’t have their names handy at the moment, and some of them have been virtually invisible, the CEO of one of the top gun manufactorers is a good example, who was finally “outed” recently due to the recent school tragedy. But the rest are available to those with the time to find them. And yes, my young and paranoid Neil, some are Democrats. But many more are not. Most give money to both parties, because they are the only game in town, some give mroe to the Right, some to the Left. They own both now.
The real global power conspriacy is and has been occurring gradually for a long time now, without much help from the Right’s favorite target, the UN. Basically right out in the open. Perhaps, if logic and reasoning were used, it is these multinational corporations who basically own and run all the main governments of the world who are creating their “one world government” or new world order, as Bush senior called it. My evidence of such is plain and available to all with eyes to see and ears to hear, on the daily news in all major countries around the world. It is the same slipping away of local power and control that the Right also claims to lament, but you/they focus only on the government, not the power behind the government. They are now one, corporate power and federal governments, and call it what you will, an oligarchy, totalitarianism, fascist state, it doesn’t really matter- because it all amounts to the same thing in the end anyway.
This reality lesson has been posted before. I don’t know why you need to keep hearing it. Issues such as AGW, whether real or not it doesn’t really matter to the elite, is mere side-show to them. Another wedge issue to keep the rabble busy and fighting each other. A very old and tried and true method to maintain the status quo. Works like a charm.
Paranoid delusions. You may as well ask me to prove that UFOs don’t exist or magic isn’t real. It’s BS! And the funny thing is, is that I don’t even buy that you believe it. You are just trying to divert attention away from the AGW debate like you have always done. As though it is your mission to derail and distract. Hmmmm.
Oh my! The dreaded status quo. Do you even know what status quo means? It means: The existing condition or state of affairs. That’s all it means. There have been people for all of human existance that have labored to maintain the status quo, or the existing condition or state of affairs, and look how succsessful they were. Not very.
You know, something just occured to me. If people who are trying to gain power are also trying to maintain the status quo, or the existing condition or state of affairs, isn’t that a tad contrary to acheiving their goals? I mean if they are trying to gain power, wouldn’t that mean that they are not satisfied with the status quo, or the existing condition or state of affairs, and are in fact trying to change the status quo, or the existing condition or state of affairs? If you look at the meaning of the words and phrases you are employing, they kind of contradict themselves. Just sayin.
Mr. Hood, this –
‘I don’t have their names handy at the moment, and some of them have been virtually invisible, the CEO of one of the top gun manufactorers is a good example, who was finally “outed” recently due to the recent school tragedy. But the rest are available to those with the time to find them.’
is truly lame and pathetic. You don’t have anyone’s name, they are invisible (how convenient!), and you have no source or references for the story about how a (nameless) CEO of an unknown gun company was ‘outed’.
Why on Earth did you even bother?
They have the power, they are maintaining that, thus “status quo.” Nothing contradictory about that. Course different elites may clash on occasion out of personal greed etc. But this is all so obvious I am embarrassed to be required to point it out.
Well, if they already have the power, what is the problem? What are they doing that makes your life miserable?
You know what’s funny? You come here and rail against the rich elites but you can’t even point out how what they do affects your life. On one hand you say they are trying to gain power, then on the other hand you say they already have the power. So which is it? And what is it about the status quo that is so intolerable that you think there should be sweeping changes? is it that you believe that your status should be higher because of your education? The truth is that none of the choices you have made in your life were made for you by someone else. They were made by you. Your position in life is entirely your own doing. Your disatisfaction with your own choices will not be reversed by punishing rich people. And your status will not be elevated by bringing about a socialist state.
The UN sees itself as a world governing body instead of an international body formed to intermediate desputes between participating nations to avoid warfare. The AGW hoax was created to present a crisis to the entire world so that the UN could freighten the world’s population into following it’s banner. It is nothing more than that. And they are doing that by manufacturing concensus, falsifying data, and completely ignoring large portions of their own studies to present scary scenarios in their summary reports to policy makers. That is the real issue here. That is what I’m concerned about. Not your flakey theories about the rich elites wanting to control everything, when they practically already do, and have for a long time.
I have “pointed that out” here for a very long time as you know so well. To say otherwise is the height of absurdity. You can pretend anything you want if it makes you feel better, and you do. With regards to how the maintenance of the status quo can be a negative thing, I also have addressed that in the past ad nauseum, so it’s the same issue. It is a very illogical question actually, but that’s par for the course here, so rock on Neilio!
Think of your socialist beliefs this way: no one, ever has taken a small rickety boat, under fire from guards, and gone sailing into socialist Cuba. No, if you really are passionate about socialism, than you are welcome to take the yacht you could by or take a cruise into Cuba. I wonder why you cant do that from the other side? And about the rich elites: most of them started off poor, they offered a goods or service to the public and got power and money from this. Welcome to capitalism.
You always default to that response when you know you are either wrong or at a loss to respond logically. omg… he he he
Sorry, I get that way when I start feeling nausious. You know it’s funny, I get that way whenever I read your posts. Hmmmm.
Really you two!! You both must be very bored with your lives… smh