Letters to the Editor

Climate warning

February 26, 2010


To the editor:

This is the coldest winter I’ve experienced in years. You too, probably. Last summer wasn’t exactly the scorcher we might normally expect.

So, what are you going to believe? Your experience dealing with this cold weather and high gas bills or data put out by scientists who secretly may have invested in wind and solar power and electric cars. It’s obvious! We’re experiencing a cooling trend!

Scientists are always jacking us around! It’s obvious the sun comes up in the east, circles overhead and sets in the west. Some scientists claim the Earth circles the sun. They claim the Earth isn’t flat! They haven’t been to Kansas. Beware of scientists with “data.” They’re trying to confuse us with “facts.” Have you seen their facts yourself?

They offer you a photo of “Earth as seen from space.” Beware! With computers, all sorts of images can be created. Those “photos” came out of a government program!

We need more people like George Will, someone who must have spent hour after hour, many days digging out evidence on climate, and scientists who are trying to change our AMERICAN way of life. They’d have the government taking away our cars, if it weren’t for journalists like Will, really digging into these issues!



heybluekc 8 years, 3 months ago

Do what Mr. Larson? Lawrence Kansas and the Midwest is only a small place. Last summer the Pacific Northwest experienced the hottest summer on record. Seattle had a string of days in the upper 90's. The world is a much broader spectrum than you can picture Mr. Larson. Im so sick of this debate. Here is how it should be looked at. Fossil fuels contribute to greenhouse gas, along with mother nature from volcanoes etc. We can not stop mother nature, only what we do as humans can be controlled. So for the love of humanity reduce carbon emmisions, strive towards green energy and step up to do your part and stop thinking someone is screwing you. In case you have not realized lately the fossil fuel companies screw you rather well.

Dan Edwards 8 years, 3 months ago

@heybluekc, I think your sarcasm meter is faulty!

independant1 8 years, 3 months ago

I'm a greenie. AGW is just theory o'day. Another more modern and better theory is on the horizon, it will I'm sure swallow all the data in this one and leap forward. Keeps the big bidness textbook industry thriving. I saved my old ones, especially the history books. USA and Canadian texts differ. (Which direction do electrons travel in current anyway?) Creates a lot of dissonence. Fossil fuels are organic. I'm really into organic living, it's the current rage. And really don't understand why a. Big bidness don't look harder at exploiting natural gas to fuel internal combustion machines, it's cleaner. Our milkman in 60's retrofit his truck to run on propane, it was cheaper. Ol' Max saved some money. b. From whence is the next breakthrough to store electricity going to come from? Batteries aren't very efficient considering energy requirements at present and going forward. We most likely dissipate as much electricity in the grid due to loss over mile than we produce with windmills and solar cells. I would rather buy the cheaper electricity produced in abundance by the more natural fuels, they're more earth friendly. c. Nucular? oops, nevermind don't want to start a fight. It was much hotter when I was a kid, airconditioning was for the rich people.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 3 months ago

There's no paper over here. Would somebody pass me a carbon credit?

Stuart Evans 8 years, 3 months ago

whatever happens to our planet, a little warmer, a little colder, I'm certain that humans will either evolve to embrace the new climate or they will die off and another mammal will take over the top of the kingdom.

Charlie Bannister 8 years, 3 months ago

Makes me want to hug a tree and lay down in the grass and caress it. You climate change people make me laugh uproariously. What a wasteful and fraudulent theory!! It is nothing more than adhering to a leftist political agenda that has no more merit when it comes to so called climate change than it does on any other issue. Bring on the mid terms. Just maybe we can get the adults back in charge.

devobrun 8 years, 3 months ago

OOOOh, its science. The starets. The givers of knowledge. The wise and pure. Don't challenge them. They are scientists. And what do you know?

The priests of the new religion. Holy workers above humanity and its foibles. They are in agreement. The new bible will save us from our iniquities.

Praise them for they are scientists. The wise.

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

gphawk89 8 years, 3 months ago

Don't you know, it the climate always gets colder before it gets warmer! I've seen that several times lately. Considering the cold this winter, it looks like we're right on the verge of experiencing a real warming trend. The sky is falling, the sky is falling....

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 3 months ago

No fewere than eight exclamation points in this LTE. And the sarcasm doesn't become apparent until the third paragraph.

Still, this guy writes better than Garrison Keillor.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 3 months ago

"They are scientists. And what do you know?"

Good question, Devo-- what do you know-- except that you want to be the high priest of science, but without actually doing any of the science.

jaywalker 8 years, 3 months ago

I think attempting to 'go green' simply makes sense.
I don't think anything we do will have much effect until we get the entire globe to join in. Brazil, China, India, Africa - they're lovin' their recent embrace of capitalistic industrialization and their new position in the global trade market, something we've been brow-beating them into for decades. Now when they're realizing the fruits of their labors do ya think they're gonna change jack? Not a chance. I think these huge winter storms and icy cold weather are actually proof of global warming rather than a repudiation of it. I don't think (even if "man-made global warming" were a fact) that we could possibly alleviate let alone reverse its effects if the global climate is actually so fragile that we can influence it so grandly in a 150 year time period. It'd be like trying to stop a runaway locomotive with fans and a bucket of ice. I think its much more plausible (if there is global warming going on) that the catalyst is either coming from the sun, due to a weakening of our magnetic field, coming from beneath the Earth's crust, or some combination of such factors. Furthermore, it's widely held that we are still involved in the last installment of a 'little ice age", and if such is the case it should come as common sense that a one degree tick up in average global temps would merely be a predictable result if that period were abating.

My personal conclusion: "Man-made global warming" is a hype. Gore won a Nobel Prize for a movie that has been so thoroughly disproven for the "facts" it disseminated that countries like Great Britain have banned it from all schools. Strike one. The "proof" of MMGW is so thoroughly conclusive, so obvious and incontrovertible, that numerous scientists have been found to be falsifying data in order to prop up their claims. Strike two. The same temperature increase we've supposedly experienced on Earth have also been measured on neighboring planets. Is our fossil fuel burning reaching Mars? Strike three.

leedavid 8 years, 3 months ago

Wasn't it the scientist that using all the information available, the direction of the sun, the most modern math available, determined the earth was flat? Yeah, I believe it was. LOL!

jafs 8 years, 3 months ago


If our activities have in fact affected the climate in the last 150 years, then it would stand to reason that changing our activities could in fact affect the climate in a positive way.

Your comments about developing nations are correct, however, most other nations have already agreed to the Kyoto protocol, and seem genuinely interested in preventing further damage to the environment.

The USA is one of very few countries that hasn't signed it.

svenway_park 8 years, 3 months ago

Hmmmm.... Freeman Dyson......

Is this the same Freeman Dyson that a now disappearded individual frequently cited for the proposition that the world was running out of oxygen? The same Freeman Dyson who actually disputes the many statements of the believers in Global Warming?

Who could have things so fouled up? Well it is easy.

Paulette2 is Cool/Spiderman/Ariadne/rusty2/ etc.

Filing any frivolous lawsuits, Paulette? Have you gotten all that blue paint off your hands and equipment?

Stuart Evans 8 years, 3 months ago

a lot of bagging on science going on here. just because some scientists have become alarmists about a certain cause, does not mean that science is forever flawed and that we should all run back to our caves and worship the sun.

jaywalker 8 years, 3 months ago


I'd like to think that was the case, but like I said, doing it alone ain't gonna amount to beans. China and India will surpass our level of pollution very soon if they haven't already. I remember seeing a projection of what it would take to drop the level of CO2 if ALL fossil fuel burning were immediately ceased and it would still take decades. There's no way we can get it all stopped; no one wants to go back to that 'world'. I guess every little bit helps, but still... Like I said, I believe the climate is going through a natural process and/or being affected by internal or external natural forces. From what I understand, the amount of CO2 that can be released from the northern regions of permafrost can/will far surpass anything we've done. If the planet is going through a natural process and thereby thaws that permafrost significantly, it won't make a bit of difference what we do.
I still believe in going green, however. Just makes good sense to harness the elements as much as possible and not release pollutants.

cthulhu_4_president 8 years, 3 months ago

I find it funny that humans think that we are capable of stabalizing the climate when it hasn't been stable in 2 billion years.

Boston_Corbett 8 years, 3 months ago

Have a Cool and fruity treat, paulette2.

Have you said hello to Mr. Kealing yet?

Mandie Eutsler 8 years, 3 months ago

Awesome wind up Mark Larson! You did a good job picking a fight, and now lets all enjoy the show...

cthulhu_4_president 8 years, 3 months ago

Some might be interested in a lecture by Micheal Crichton (RIP) that he gave on comlexity. He used Yellowstone National Park as a great example of what bad things can happen when people assume that a system is simpler than it actually is, and that humans have all the right answers. Things can end up even worse than before, as it did in Yellowstone when the staff tried to compensate for decreases in some predators numbers by adding more members of other species that they prey on. They didn't appreciate how adding one species en masse affects every other species in the area. The result was mass starvation and the destruction of the natural predation/food cycle in the park. The analogy with the environment is fair, as it is affected by thousands of things on the planet, and even some things off the planet, and, potentially, some things that humans are still ignorant of, and could screw up badly, given the chance.

I'm not advocating non-action, just the need to know what the correct action is beyond the shadow of a doubt, and to have realistic expectations of that action (e.g. no one action is likely to stop global warming). Anyone interested can google "Micheal Crichton complexity lecture". I think it's even on youtube.

think_about_it 8 years, 3 months ago

Check out these industrious guys. They have documented most of the weather reporting stations in the US by noting their locations and photographing them. A vast majority do not follow governments own rules for sensor location, actually 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat such as parking lots and brick buildings.


Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm. Global Warming is the biggest hoax of all time?

Ok, I'll try and put myself in the shoes of people who think this. I'll try to pretend that cutting down a bunch of trees that turn co2 into oxygen while, at the same time, burning coal and fuel 24 hours a day has no impact on the environment. I still can't find the motive for scientists and progressives to try and decieve people. What do they gain?

I mean, it's not like Neocons decieving the public to go to war so they can reward their buddies with oil contracts in, say places like Iraq. Now that's deception!

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm. Global Warming is the biggest hoax of all time?

Ok, I'll try and put myself in the shoes of people who think this. I'll try to pretend that cutting down a bunch of trees that turn co2 into oxygen while, at the same time, burning coal and fuel 24 hours a day has no impact on the environment. I still can't find the motive for scientists and progressives to try and decieve people. What do they gain?

I mean, it's not like Neocons decieving the public to go to war so they can reward their buddies with oil contracts in, say places like Iraq. Now that's deception!

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago


You're such an expert on liberal agendas. Can you please tell me what is the motive behind the global warming hoax? This should be entertaining.

RibMan 8 years, 3 months ago

ManBearPig is a scam artist or a fool. The scam fell apart and millions remain emotionally invested in what they were told was "science." It's hard to introduce new facts and apologies from so-called climatologists like Dr. Phil Jones and get through to people who are embarrassed or unwilling to admit their mistakes. It takes time. People who were hoodwinked are still in denial and/or grieving.

Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 3 months ago


That is an excellent point. However, we currently do not have a choice of 'inaction' as you put it. While we take the time to figure out "what the correct action is beyond the shadow of a doubt" we are still pumping CO2 into the air.

Not unlike the metaphorical frog in a saucepan, how long are you willing to let the temperature slowly rise?

Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 3 months ago


The majority of the public and the VAST majority of scientists disagree with you. This is the problem with ideologues on both sides, you pick and choose which facts you accept as fact. In one hand you have mountains of data and people who actually look at this stuff telling you one thing, and on the other you have Rush Limbaugh and company...and you accept the word of an entertainer over that of scientists.

think_about_it 8 years, 3 months ago

Here is the direct link to the report. It seems that the above link quit working. It shows the pictures of the reporting stations and also some taken in infrared. From the report:

"The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.


Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago

Ribman, if you don't think that cutting down rainforests and pumping a bunch of CO2 has no effects on the environment, you might want to go back to middle school and get refreshed on some basic biology.

But say it is one big hoax, what are the negatives to having clean air and less reliance on foreign oil by developing clean energy technology? I like to think of benefits like these instead of trying to bring my political ideologies like some people do.

Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 3 months ago


That is not a 'report'...it's debunked propaganda. Show me a peer-reviewed article with the same conclusions (hint, you won't).

For every denier propaganda...there is a debunk such as this:

lindseydoyle 8 years, 3 months ago

The mainstream media keeps us focused on this issue but there is a much more pressing problem. We are going to start running out of potable water. The question is- for both issues- what we are going to do about it. We need to radically alter our Western lifestyle. It is insane and not sustainable. But the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

lounger 8 years, 3 months ago

All the scientists predicted this cooling trend years ago. Its part of Global climate change brought on from loads of pollution we are putting into our air. Not everything and everywhere will heat up. The worlds weather patterns are way off and parts of canada have been warmer than kansas this year. Check the data. Check the facts. Reality is a hard thing to swallow when denal is harsh.

Chris Golledge 8 years, 3 months ago


Yes, please do.

a) On the one hand you have temperature information that lots of other people have looked at said, yeah, this isn't total garbage; and on the other, you have Anthony Watts who is free to publish anything he wants without it being verified by anyone else.

b) I'm sure all the losses in polar ice, the changes in animal migrations, and the general shifting of agricultural climate zones are results from faulty thermometers or how they are used.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

What is interesting is when we have one year, or month, of hot weather, all the alarmists will be saying, see we told you so. They won't remember their comments about how you need "long term" such as 30 years out of 4.5 billion or even 6,000.

By the way, what IS the correct temperature of the earth? How do we know it hasn't gone too far and it will do no good taxing our great grandkids out of oblivion?

In public school we first heard the earth was cooling from being formed. Then we heard it was warming from having glaciers over a good part of it, including where we are now standing. So how does one determine to the nearest fraction of a degree if it's warming or cooling, if that is appropriate, if we have done something to change it, if we can do something to change it? I know, we have to do something before it's too late....such as everyone needs to align their treadmills with the equator. How do we know it won't help? We must take action and why not make that "action" aligning your treadmill? We must not spend the time determining it's not effective. If you don't have a treadmill, maybe we can have a "treasure for treadmills" program to provide everyone with one by taxing everyone more. That's got to help, it's just got to. Ca-ching!

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Tom, you don't disappoint.

So, you're saying that hippies, the ones that "go potty in the park", have been able to convince scientists around the world to buy into their theory to give them a way to redistribute wealth so they can get some handouts!?!?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I think you're giving too much credit to hippies. But, I guess they were right about the Vietnam War so maybe we should give them more credit.

And since when did you start believing the earth is more than 6,000 years old anyway?

Thanks for the chuckle.

cthulhu_4_president 8 years, 3 months ago

dannylandulf: As I explicitly said, I am not advocating inaction. I merely accept that any action taken without complete and total knowledge of the situation (which may be impossible to attain in terms of the climate) has the potential to make things worse than they were before, or would have been if we had done nothing. As in the Yellowstone example I cited, the staff felt the need to take immediate action to stop the immediate death of the animals. They acted under the popular assumption that "It's better to do something to avoid catastrophe than to do nothing and watch it unfold." (which is how I understand your frog analogy. As they learned, that is not always true, and they made things infinately worse in Yellowstone. You should check out the lecture, I think you'd like it!

To answer your frog question: I'll let the temperature rise until I'm sure I can get the frog out without dropping him into the fire.

Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 3 months ago


The problem I find with your argument (which I fundamentally agree with, BTW) is that I feel you have it backwards. We are currently adding something to the system that isn't naturally there, at least not in the quantities we are putting it there. So how then can you say that adding the smallest thing to a system can destroy it, but then say that the CO2 levels are something we shouldn't worry about till we have more data?

think_about_it 8 years, 3 months ago

So danny, you are saying that the hundreds of sites that have been photographed don't exist? Do you not find a problem with collection sites being next to a huge parking lot? Eight feet away from an air conditioner unit? Do you not think that being located next to a huge rock building will affect the 24 hour temperature collection data? 90% of the collection sites in the US fail to meet the proper guidelines and your only answer to this is that it hasn't been peer reviewed? Did you even read the report?

sizzleplate 8 years, 3 months ago

The goal of these "global warming" pushers is more taxes and global control. Fair and simple. Carbon taxes and cap and trade is just another way for big government to become even bigger. It's sad to see so many people these days laying down and accepting everything they are told without really looking into the research, which clearly doesn't support the man-made climate change theory. Look at the IPCC, which is completely wrought with fraud. It's so obvious what they are trying to do! Just because corporations tell you something is true doesn't mean you should accept it. Wake up people, our earth has experienced climate change since the beginning of time. CO2 is one of the fundamental elements of life. Every single person and animal on this earth produces CO2, does this mean they are going to tax us to breathe???

Please do some research before making up your mind and handing the government even more money and more control over our lives!!!!




Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 3 months ago


Did you even watch the video I posted?

When the temperature trends from sites that he cherry picked as 'reliable' are graphed...the results are nearly identical to that of the sites overall.

sizzleplate 8 years, 3 months ago

"CO2 is one of the fundamental elements of life." , typo, I meant CO2 is one of the fundamental compounds, not an element... :)

think_about_it 8 years, 3 months ago

According to your youtube video the graph is nearly identical. I'm sure that the youtube video has passed your precious "peer review" test, right? Why didn't you just post something from wiki? Take the emotion out of it and use some common sense for once.

Answer this one question for me please.

If a temperature collection site is surrounded by huge areas of asphalt, will those temperature readings be an accurate reflection of the actual temperature?

Now apply that same logic to 90% of the collection sites.

wolfy 8 years, 3 months ago

The science supporting global warming is difficult to rebut. Still, clarmoring on about things that might happen in the distant future rarely gets anybody's attention. After all, in the long run, we'll all be dead. So forget global warming. It's all a hoax perpetrated by leftist elites!

Now that all that bad science is behind us, I say let's incentivize investment in new energy sources and sustainable living so we don't have to spend trillions fighting wars in the Middle East protecting our imperialism and access to petroleum. Let's go "Green" so we can create a raft a good jobs designing and building new infrastructure as well as spur innovation that can be exported to other countries by good old American capitalists. It shouldn't matter why we progress from our sorry state. What matters is that we progress.

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago


It's amazing that our government has been able to persuade scientists all over the world to go along with its plan to control US citizens. Seriously, you sound like pawn for the oil industry.

Cap and Trade will be a catalyst in finding alternative forms of clean and independent energy. Once we develop this technology, our big bad government won't be able to control it b/c there will be nothing to control, unlike the oil industry. Google "Bloom Box" if you don't believe this is achievable.

And please stop telling us that the Earth goes in climate cycles. This is common knowledge. The issue is to whether or not we're causing unnatural cycles to occur, which a large amount of evidence suggests.

Like I've said, if you don't believe cutting down our forests and pumping tons of CO2 into the air each day doesn't have some kind of environmental impact, then I'm not sure if you're worth debating.

Daniel Kennamore 8 years, 3 months ago


That was my POINT. Neither are reliable. Find me a peer reviewed study that backs up your claims.

And yes...your (and that propaganda's) point makes logical sense. The problem is, science doesn't accept things based on just logic...that's just the first step. Then you have to test, and retest, and review, and retest and retest and produce replicable results before drawing conclusions.

Anthony Watts STARTED from the standpoint of trying to prove the temperature readings unreliable and then wrote an article that supported that viewpoint. That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

cthulhu_4_president 8 years, 3 months ago

dannylandulf: I appreciate the comments, and the civil discourse, which it seems that many people who feel passionatly about this topic are incapable of. As a rule, I try to never ever dive into a hypothetical situation to make an argument, so this will be a strain as I attempt to address your points.

"We are currently adding something to the system that isn't naturally there, at least not in the quantities we are putting it there."

The first thing that comes to mind when I read this sentance is that we have no way of knowing how much is 'naturally' there. Humans have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere since the first caveman found out that his food tasted better cooked (interestingly, when humans switched from burning wood to burning fossil fuels, we actually decreased our carbon footprint, as burning wood releases more CO2 than fossil fuels. Alas, I digress), we simply have no way of knowing what is 'natually' there, if the 'natural' amount is what humans need to survive, and if attempts to regulate it will be successful (so far, they have not been). I'm not saying that I know the answers, I'm saying that no one does. Yet.

"So how then can you say that adding the smallest thing to a system can destroy it, "

This is dramatizing my point a little bit. Yellowstone was not destroyed by the good-natured staff of the time, as Earth will not be destroyed by anything we pithy humans could come up with. But Yellowstone's natural cycles of predation were dramatically altered, and much harm came from an action that everyone thought would be harmless (releasing a few more herbivores for the local carnivores to snack on). In retrospect, we can see that this was a terrible idea. The concept of ecological contamination is fairly basic common knowledge now, but it wasn't at the time, and it took this disaster for us to learn that assuming absolute knowledge about a system is a bad thing.

"but then say that the CO2 levels are something we shouldn't worry about till we have more data?"

I didn't say that no one should worry. I worry about it plenty, but I don't believe that our worrying about something that could happen should goad us into an action that could be detrimental in ways that none of us can forsee, especially when dealing with a system so encompassing, complex, and unpredictable as the environment. With the thousands, and possibly millions, of variables at work here it just seems to me that the wisest course of action is to wait for conclusive solutions to the problem, rather than playing double or nothing with our species' future.

sizzleplate 8 years, 3 months ago


It's amazing that our government has been able to persuade YOU that global warming is real. However, these scientists aren't buying it:



Like I have already said, check your facts. Sure I've heard the government say that "scientists" all over the world agree just like you have. But when you really look into it, who are these "scientists"?? The IPCC? Who is funding them? Who is selecting them?


Nobody is disagreeing with you on the fact that cutting down forests is bad. Nobody is saying pollution is a good thing.

jafs 8 years, 3 months ago


We will probably never know "everything" about anything.

What if the consequences of waiting are worse than the consequences of acting, even with imperfect knowledge?

think_about_it 8 years, 3 months ago

But those temperature readings taken from those sites are the basis behind the "theory". If our temperature database is "the best in the world" and is this unscrupulous what does that say about the entire theory?

To be honest I had not heard of Anthony Watts before today and I am not here to defend him or his reasons behind collecting the photos and documenting their locations. Would it not make sense to you that NOAA should have been aware of the conditions at these sites? Is it not unreasonable to believe that the scientists using this data in their theories were not aware either?

Paul R Getto 8 years, 3 months ago

As long as this is a disposable planet, we have nothing to worry about. Climate change is a fact of life and the mini-ice age three hundred years ago is one example. We will find out someday if we are seriously changing the climate. Long term, we will need to change our ways; the question is how to do it rationally? Obviously, it won't happen on Internet blogs. If we do manage to kill ourselves off, another, perhaps more useful and intelligent species might evolve to fill the space we have left behind.

cthulhu_4_president 8 years, 3 months ago

"We will probably never know "everything" about anything."

We don't need to know everything, just enough to be pretty darned sure that we're right. This could happen someday with regard to the climate, and I'm hopeful that it does.

"What if the consequences of waiting are worse than the consequences of acting, even with imperfect knowledge?"

With regard to this issue, I don't know. Nobody does. That's my point.

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 3 months ago


The government hasn't convinced me of anything. I've done my own research on the matter and I believe that humans have an impact. Obviously, the degree and magnitude is still up for debate.

And I wish there was no such thing as cap and trade but, unfortunately, we can't get the United Corporations of America to change their energy consumption on their own.

However, you've drifted from my original argument, which is that the global warming conspiracy to control American citizens is a conspiracy theory that conservatives like to use to their advantage.

Like I said, you can debate the magnitude of human impact, but to deny human impact is ridiculous.

More than anything, I'm baffled as to why there is so much resistance to developing clean energy by conservatives. If we can develop it right, it really can be a win-win situation for everyone. But, unfortunately, it gets tied to liberal agendas so, therefore, conservatives have to be against it.

devobrun 8 years, 3 months ago

Hey bozo,. How do you know what I want to be?

And how do you know what science I've done?

Do you know Charles Elachi? Fawwaz Ulaby? Marc Imhoff?. M. Craig Dobson? Alois Sieber? Martti Hallikainen? Its a big list, bozo. I'm actually havin' fun recalling my oldcolleagues.

Nullius verba, bozo.

Nullius verba.

My assertions are that science is all about the test. No test, no science. "On the word of no one" is the motto of the Royal Society, bozo.

It means that authority is not the arbiter of science. Consensus is a fiction. 350 years of science based upon the motto that warns of authoritarianism. "Experts", royalty, confabs of wise men......all hogwash until now.

Now the Royal Society uses the motto "Respect the facts".

That's right, bozo. We must respect the facts and who tells them to us. It is the story and the authority of the narrator that counts now. 350 years of scientific philosophy turned on its head.

I assert that the process by which climate science is being conducted is a travesty. The idea of freedom from tyranny is lost in a fog of leaked (or stolen) e-mails, lost data, political expediencies, and linguine-spined go-along scientists.

They aren't the only ones to bow down to the emperors of their respective sciences. They aren't the only ones who are afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes.

So I have to say it.

Modern science is a not about science, or the search for knowledge. It is about political power. The money comes from the government. Make the government happy.

Hans Christian Andersen has never been more pertinent.

ukillaJJ 8 years, 3 months ago

There is a BIG difference between climate change and weather!

The warmer the CLIMATE, the more moisture that evaporates into the air, causing new (less predictable) weather patterns (i.e. more snow in places that didn't use to have it).

I would recommend reading a few books or taking a few classes before voicing un-educated opinions about science. Luckily there are other educated people out there, otherwise your so-called American way of life would revolve around notions such as a flat earth and blood-letting.

jumpin_catfish 8 years, 3 months ago

Check out the this link on cnet regarding the eco god al gore. The comments of readers are great.


independant1 8 years, 3 months ago

Pro phil jones came out - no "statistically significant" global warming...last 15 years.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.