According to a recent report:
“Rings in fossilized pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.”
These findings will not set well with the ruling elite here and abroad as they are currently trying to extract money from carbon emitting countries to redistribute to other less fortunate countries. That of course is assuming money would even make it to those less fortunate countries, considering that historically, that money only serves to line the pockets of elite UN members and Despots.
Let’s continue down the path toward greener, more sustainable energy, but let’s also end this charade of AGW. It’s a complete racket that is only enriching a handful of people, can you say Al Gore, and doing nothing to actually help us transition to another energy platform.
More findings to make the leftist drones like mitchie, creepy assclown and others squeal and squirm:
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
The InterAcademy Council (IAC) conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on this review, the IAC issued a report with recommended measures and actions to strengthen IPCC’s processes and procedures so as to be better able to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports.IAC findings:
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).
In plain English: the IPCC reports are NOT PEER-REVIEWED.
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).
Again in plain English: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “TOO POLITICAL” (p. 25).
Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”
Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:
Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).
How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20mLGz6ss
As the GOD_FATHER OF GLOBAL WARMING LOVELOCK HAS ACCURATELY STATED the DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS WERE “INNACURATE” and the SCIENCE was far from “SETTLED”. It is factual that a true PEER-REVIEW of IPCC’s process found that their process was flawed, politically motivated, forced consensus and its conclusions complete crap.
“But their general finding was: “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.” They certainly did NOT say the IPCCs conclusions were “complete crap””
So, their conclusions which were based on a flawed one-sided and political process, which were not properly peer-reviewed are what you call “a success”? The IPCC kept dissenters and their data and processes out of the original process in the first place!!!
okay, thanks for clearing that up, ideologue.
Tired, tired… just read the IAC’s assessment. It is far more nuanced than you are making it out. Anyway, here’s to hoping the IPCC have taken the IAC’s suggestions to heart as they prepare their fifth assessment.
Meanwhile, you might want to read the Pentagon’s most recent Quadrennial Defense Review. Whatever else you could say about the DoD, good, bad, or indifferent, it is arguably the governmental agency most tasked with the assessment of global strategic realities, and for whom it is most important to get things right in a very realistic and pragmatic way. That’s not to say that they always DO get things right (they make mistakes, like everyone else), but when they get things wrong there’s real hell to pay. So they try harder to get things right. Perhaps more importantly, at least from an ideological point of view, one would be seriously challenged to name an important governmental agency less likely to be infected by the “Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy” (large “L”, or “PL”, or whatever Amazona’s definition/syntax is these days). So here’s a paragraph from the QDR (p. 84):
Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.
Let me break that down for you, sentence-by-sentence:
(S1): They don’t say “might”, they say they “WILL”. You’ll have to read the whole thing to understand why they used the phraseology they did, but it’s important.
(S2): They say “climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked”. It’s nice to hear them say that so simply and exactly, because that is EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING for years now on this site (even on this thread): for all kinds of reasons, you CANNOT separate them economically or strategically.
(S3): They argue for a need to act PROACTIVELY, which is again something I’ve also stressed for years on this site (even on this thread).
With respect to the last comment, let me also just say that, IMO, acting proactively by way of some sort of government involvement becomes important to the extent that the supply of an essential product is not controlled by free-market forces alone, and/or to the extent that the externalities of said product are not addressed by the transactions themselves on the free market.
rico, odd that you have so much trouble understanding my””syntax” (as you put it) in that it is so simple and so consistent.
Maybe that’s the problem—-too simple, too linear, too consistent, and not enough polysyllabic meandering. In other words, alien to your thought process.
Capital L Liberal—-the word in a political context, designating a political philosophy that is very real even if not understood. (As opposed to lower-case L liberal, which is the dictionary definition of the term as a modifier—a liberal this or a liberal that, but not just “a liberal”. As the political philosophy which flies the flag of the word “Liberal” is one of the most rigid, intolerant, dogmatic, ILLIBERAL political philosophies, second only to the politico-religious zeal of radical Islam, the difference is critical.)
PL—one who parrots Liberal talking points and supports Liberal dogma even while being ignorant of the underlying ideology.
See? Same as always, and not really all that hard to understand.
Maybe it’s a memory thing….
As for your quotes, you manage to get in a lot of other people’s words and a lot self-congratulation about how you have been saying the same things yourself, but there are still some things missing.
“…a need to act PROACTIVELY, which is again something I’ve also stressed for years on this site (even on this thread). ”
Act how? Doing what? With what goal in mind? And if there is a goal, how was it identified?
“The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.”
Just what ARE these “actions” mentioned in the quote? Are they actions to try to alter this “climate change” they reference? Or are they actions to cope with inevitable and unalterable climate changes which are part of the natural cycle of planetary climate?
Now I’m going to suggest a different take on the paragraph you quoted. Do try to keep up.
The DoD has, evidently, identified climate change as being something that will “…play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. …” From this one paragraph it is impossible to tell what role the DoD thinks climate change will play in our “future security environment” much less whether the agency believes that this climate change is, one, caused by human activity, and two, can be altered by human activity.
…“climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked”..
OK. No big news here. Colder weather, for example, creates demand for more energy, which of course has an economic impact as well as depleting our energy resources. Duh.
“The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.”
You appear to be lurching toward an assumption that these “actions” will be something geared to altering climate change. Perhaps I read this wrong. If I did, please correct my mistake.
But it could just as easily mean, in a greater context, actions to ADAPT to changes in the climate, as well as to assure consistent availability of energy resources and a therefore more stable economy.
In your quote I see nothing to prove that the DoD believes that climate change is manmade, or influenced by human activity, nor do I see anything that says the DoD is suggesting efforts to alter climate change. All I see is a statement of the obvious—that changes in the climate can affect our energy security and (I assume by extension) our economic security.
Stripped of its governmentese, the sentence says: If it gets hotter more electricity will be used for cooling and that will affect our energy supplies and that can lead to economic changes, and if it gets colder more energy will be used for heating and that will affect our energy supplies and that can lead to economic changes.
Stripped of your interpretation of the word “action” your quote says We need to be ready for the economic changes that will follow increased energy demands, and the increased energy demands themselves, that will be created as the climate changes.
But thanks for your admission to the belief that we need government control of energy resources. At least that is what I got from your typically convoluted “…acting proactively by way of some sort of government involvement becomes important to the extent that the supply of an essential product is not controlled by free-market forces alone, and/or to the extent that the externalities of said product are not addressed by the transactions themselves on the free market.”
Do you work for the government? Because your passion for elaborately constructed and often impenetrable verbiage certainly qualifies you for such work.
Rico, you evidently have a continuing problem with reading comprehension. I never denied “climate change”‘ just that it was “man made”. And that the PREDICTED consequences were highly questionable. You do know that the conclusions of its cause and predicted consequences were results of the FLAWED IPCC data, models, processes, examinations and insufficient peer reviews. All revealed in the audit.
Until you address your reading comprehension deficit, you will continue to make erroneous claims and “nuanced” interpretations.
tired, have you ever seen so many words used to say so little?
Jonah Goldberg’s new book, The Tyranny of Cliches, goes into a lot of detail that explains the befuddlement of such as rico over words like “ideology”. There has been lots of pseudo-intellectual rubbish written about the word “ideology”, most of it trying to dismiss ideology as somehow the territory of fools or the weak-minded, and Goldberg dissects the nonsense quite deftly.
He also dissects the “pragmatic” movement.
rico is so bumfuddled, such a repository of partially understood and half-remembered demagoguery, so caught up in his verbosity, that his posts are nothing more than intellectual masturbation—-they make him feel good but are not very pleasant to watch.
I think the only thing he has said lately of any interest at all is his statement that the free market is not the way to handle natural resources. Not that he is right, but just that he actually came right out and said it.
I think that’s what he said.
“….acting proactively by way of some sort of government involvement becomes important to the extent that the supply of an essential product is not controlled by free-market forces alone, and/or to the extent that the externalities of said product are not addressed by the transactions themselves on the free market.”
Thanks , I’ve recently been searching for info about this subject for ages and yours is the best I have found out till now. But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the supply?|What i do not understood is in truth how you are now not actually much more well-preferred than you might be right now. You’re so intelligent.