I have decided it is time to stop fighting the inevitable and put my faith in the belief that humans are causing Global Warming.
It is the right thing to do after all.
Everyone keeps telling me the science is settled so it must be true. The Oracle Al Gore even said something about putting out a baby on fire. I guess that was his way of saying the planet has a fever.
It is hard to tell with his monotone delivery.
Al Gore could say he punted a puppy and ripped the wings off an angel. But his oratory would sound so boring we might not realize just how evil he is.
Oh wait, I didn’t mean that. Well, I used to mean it but Al is my Messiah now (sorry Barack). Al knows what is best for us. The night time is the right time…
Okay where was I? Ah yes the whole settled thing. Of course it is past debate. The Himalyan glaciers are melting:
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
See, they were right. In 25 years the glaciers will be gone, leaving massive flooding and devastation…what did you say? Re-read the article?
Oh geez they were wrong. But it is only one thing. Just one major, big-time underpinning. No problem, move along.
The IPCC report says that mountain ice is disappearing after all:
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The loss of mountain ice will devastate the planet as we know it…what? I misread that one too?
Crap, they based their assertion on a college student’s dissertation.
Okay fine that is two lies. Just two underpinnings.
The IPCC report also said that rainforests would disappear because of global warming:
In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.
But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming — and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.
Finally some facts. We can’t lose the rain forests or the Earth will be plunged into darkness…oh come on! Don’t tell me I misread another one.
What the hell! Three underpinnings that were wrong. Three lies.
Still, this global warming thing has to be real. It has to. The science is settled. It’s seeeettttlllledddd!
Okay I’m going to prove it once and for all by bringing in one of the lead scientists of the IPCC, Phil Jones. He has settled the science:
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Finally this issue is resolved…what? Wait a minute, don’t tell me. Son of a beeyotch I see the problem with Jones’ reasoning.
A warming trend of 0.12C is “quite close to the significance level” but a cooling trend of the same exact amount is “not statistically significant”.
Sigh.
That’s four lies.
I guess I have no other choice as a believer in man-made Global Warming then to enact the nuclear option. Pass me a glass…
[H/T to Gateway Pundit for the compilation of all the links I used above.]
_______________________________________________________________
Chris Cameron is a writer for Radioactive Liberty and also for his own blog about everything, Angry Seafood.
2004–2010
10 responses so far ↓
1
Eric
// Mar 8, 2010 at 7:49 pm
TRAITOR!
Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, or is it defeat from victory, I get that one confused. Anyway, go out and shoot something, have a hobo bbq and smell the sweet sweet odor of a new $100 bill. If that doesn’t work stick a pre-1990 penny in your mouth and taste the capitalism.
Of course you realize there is no return from hippyism. It might make for interesting debate.
Stockholm syndrome is not a pretty way to go, my friend.
2
Les James
// Mar 8, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Back off, Eric. If Chris wants to get a sugar high from a sippy cup, that’s his business. If he wants to stain the front of his shirt with a sticky substance, who are you to call him names? I think you owe him an apology, before he starts to whine.
Hey, Chris! Look, I stood up for you.
3
Chris C
// Mar 9, 2010 at 12:24 am
Okay what’s the guess for the first pro-AGW comment from those people that “just happen” to find this post.
Closest in days without going over wins.
I say four days.
4
Eric
// Mar 9, 2010 at 9:56 am
Without going over? Um, one.
Oh Les, exactly how would you know about sugar high and sticky stains? And who’s calling names, I was just blindly projecting a title for a perceived unsubstantiated generalized nomenclature for a demographically androgynous faith in unsubstantiated scientific theory.
Everyone knows the word traitor is just some dead old white dudes ignorant concept of not following the crowd, because in a true democracy, after the majority rules by vote, opposition by anyone is astroturf.
5
psychochick
// Mar 9, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I’ve been reading this blog for years and didn’t just stumble on it.
I wanted to make a comment about Chris’s assertion that not finding the same difference in temp anywhere near statistically significant for both cooling and warming is automatically a lie.
The original comment makes sense to me, since it’s a shorter time period for the cooling that would make it harder to find it statistically valid.
It is quite common to have different treatments with the same numerical result and have one be statistically significant and the other not. It’s one of the aggravations of doing research.
6
Chris C
// Mar 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm
@Eric: You win. hehe
@psychochick: I’ll agree that the two time periods are different in length but 15 years cannot be anymore statistically valid then 8 when the entire data set of recorded temperatures goes back 250+ years.
Further, think about what Jones is doing. If he gets 6% of the data validated as statistically significant, then maybe 5% more another time, then so on and so on there will be enough validity to argue the data sets are valid as a whole.
In a way it is genius.
7
psychochick
// Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Oh, okay. I see what you’re getting at now. Thanks.
8
Eric
// Mar 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Dig a hole in the ice that goes back 650,000 years. Take samples to test the CO2 level every how many times? 650,000? 65,000? 6,500? 650? 65?
You know how many years it represents. Is one sample every year a better sample than one sample every 10,000 years?
If you test every year for the 650K, which ones do you pick for your project, or do you let each stand alone?
The IPCC used an average for each 1000 years. Which means they can be no closer than 1000 years in their estimate to how CO2 will, or was affected by the change in climate.
IT’S THE SUN STUPID.
9
Eric
// Mar 10, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Whoo hoo, I won! Um what’d I win?
10 RL Post: I Believe in Man Made Global Warming — Angry Seafood // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:24 pm
[...] Read the rest… [...]
Leave a Comment or the Terrorists Win!
If you're wondering how to get an icon next to your name, go to gravatar.com and sign up for a free account.
Remember, only terrorist sympathizers don't have a gravatar.