We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
OK, now Obama’s presidency is becoming super embarrassing. I honestly feel like someone is going to come out and pat him on the head all patronizingly. His latest Jobs Forum, (kind of like a Summit, I think, only not as fancy pants) to be hosted on Thursday, is yet another example of how woefully unprepared and hopelessly in over his head he is.
...even if you accept the IPCC predictions, look what happens. The IPCC says that world temperature will increase by 2100 by somewhere between 3.2F and 7.2F. A warming of half way between these two points works out at an average temperature increase of 0.05 degrees F per year. In the last 25 years of the past century, temperature increased at the rate of 0.04 degrees per year. (In this century, it has not increased at all!) Has this proved so appalling to manage?
Lord Lawson then notes that the IPCC predicts that, at this level of temperature rise, global food production will actually increase. He takes the IPCC's gloomiest prediction of the economic effects of global warming over the same period. By its own figures, the difference between what would happen with global warming and without it amounts to this: in a hundred years' time, people in the developed world would be "only 2.6 times better off than they are today, instead of 2.7 times, and their contemporaries in the developing world would be "only" 8.5 times as well off as people in the developing world are today, instead of 9.5 times better off". So this is the projected catastrophe, to avoid which the people of the present generation are being asked to curtail their carbon emissions by 70 per cent.
Look, just talk common sense. We have a small portion of our population not covered by health insurance who still receive healthcare, either by programs set up by our government, charity or the obligation of the medical profession and hospitals to deliver it to the UNINSURED. Next, we are going to break the rest of our system that serves the MAJORITY of us in order to do what? And in order to do this mysterious thing, the people who work and have families will have to sacrifice....can't get blood from a stone. COMMONSENSE.
I posted this in notes on my Facebook page for my AGW supporting friends who think Climategate is a smear campaign:
Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
Jones ran the CRU and recently stepped aside for a review of what happened there.
If the head of this organization is so unsure of his science that he's waiting for something to happen, that is a very sad state of affairs. It is impossible for us to trust these people if this is how they intend to impose science on us.
I know what the AGW supporters response will be, however. It will run along these lines "if a scientist proves mathematically that an asteroid will hit the earth, and he is shouted down regularly, then his only recourse would be to say something like this." Sadly, Jones was LEADING the shouting down of dissenters, not vice versa.
They would then follow up with "if there's a CHANCE an asteroid could hit the earth, shouldn't we do something about it rather than waiting to see if the science is right?"
Well, that's a big "I don't know, but I don't think so." After all, films like "Armageddon" are fun and interesting, but we all remember the 2000 computer bug, right?
Millions were spent on remediation of a problem that, ultimately, was not a problem at all. There were a number of websites at the time tracking the EVENTUAL DISASTER which the 2000 bug would cause because remediation "wasn't done fast enough or on a scale large enough". Bullcrap. It was never a problem, it was just a money-making scheme.
Finally, IF you're the scientist who has done the calculations which "PROVE" the asteroid is crashing into earth, do you destroy your dataset? Do you ADMIT in private emails that you've goosed data? Do you admit that you've silenced critics? Do you admit that there are flaws in temperature readings AS WELL AS proxy readings? And do you prevent your dissenters from getting their hands on your data by flaunting the Freedom of Information Act?
No, you don't. What you do, when all THAT gets exposed, is resort to parlor tricks, high-minded rhetoric, and political gamesmanship. We see this now, as the Climate Liars build a case to enslave us further to their religion.
Isn't interesting that the UN declared last week that AGW SHOULD BE TREATED AS A RELIGION because it would help increase interest and support? Isn't it interesting that it's now official that high priest Al Gore gets his house of worship?
At what point will humans open their eyes and realize science is NOT CONSENSUS?
They will not. They cannot. Not when power and money are involved