Posted on 12/04/2009 7:12:18 PM PST by GVnana
The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.
Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.
Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”
- Sarah Palin
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t mean to say or even imply that she was on the side of alarmists. I didn’t get that from your post at all.
you done did it now.....duck brother.
“It’s not enough to oppose cap and trade on scientific grounds?”
Do Obama & Gore respect scientific grounds or their hand picked “experts”? I say no, scientific grounds is not enough if Obama decides to ignore this fraud and forge ahead.
The fact is, if you look at this graph (from the excellent Climate Skeptic website at http://climate-skeptic.com, you can see, from a historical perspective, we are indeed in a warming cycle right now.
The point is, this warming cycle is not a new thing historically either in timing or in temperature extremes, and it is not going to result in catastrophic changes as the alarmists are arguing.
THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT: Look at the graph above, and note what happens in the area between around 800 AD and 1400 AD. 800 AD begins the Medieval warming trend, and it begins to decline again around 900 AD. Have you heard the term "Medieval Warm Period" in the news lately? The reason you might have heard it is because it presented a problem for the alarmists. The problem for them is not just if they include the Medieval warming period in their temperature graphs because even people like you or me might look at it and say "Hey...it got pretty warm back then too. As a matter of fact, it looks almost exactly like what we are seeing now!" They also had to figure out a way to get rid of the decline in temperatures after the Medieval warming period, because people like you and me would look at the declining temperatures and conclude they were coming DOWN from some HIGHER temperature. So, to make things look like they were shooting up during the industrial age, you have to pick where you start showing temperature measurements pretty carefully. Everyone who has ever graphed data to show to others who are making decisions knows that how you set your scales is very, VERY important. In the case of Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick Graph", he had to choose the longest scale he could to make people think the temperature has been flat for...basically...FOREVER, then in the 20th century is is going to look like it is shooting off the chart. So while you are factually correct, in that it has been not been getting warmer in general since 1998, it is important to keep in mind that a 10 year (or even a 20 year) period of flattening out or decline does not statistically affect where the temperature is going.
As you can see from the graph, we are getting closer to the peak, but it may not REALLY flatten out for another 100 years or more. (and making our argument that global warming doesn't exist because it has not been getting warmer since 1998 plays into the hands of the alarmists...they can and will point out that it is a natural anomaly. Where they are wrong is in thinking that it is going to continue upwards to unprecedented and catastrophic levels, and that this unique upward trend they forecast is caused by man.)
When in a historical warming cycle (as seen in the Roman and Medieval cycles) the temperature never marches implacably upwards. I may flatten or even go down for periods of time that are significant for us as humans, but are not necessarily for the long periods of time in the cycles which appear to have a frequency between 1000-1500 years.
Remember the key phrases: CATASTROPHIC ANTRHOPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.
It is not contradictory, and you CAN believe the earth IS warming (because it is) but still think the alarmist position of CATASTROPHIC MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY CO2 is absolutely an insane green-tard pocket-lining socialist boondoggle intended to grab tax dollars from developed countries to distribute to the third world and erode our sovereignty in the process.
Obviously not. So why would Obama and Gore be a reason to go off on a tangent when the arguments belong with science?
That was funny. Let’s fight the battles today. There’s plenty of battles we need to win before we get to another presidential.
Jindal-Palin, that could be one tough ticket. Or vice-versa.
She is moving the party to the right the way jesse jackson moved the dems to the left throughout the eighties - he was also a game changer but ultimately unelectable. If she succeeds in shifting the GOP as far to the right as jj moved the dems to the left then I'm happy.
There is though a real disconnect among palinites here. They don't or won't realize that Palin's following is not as big as they paint it (they point to a million FB fans but ignore that Beyonce has nearly three times as many and obama six or that there were 125 million votes cast in 08), that she does not do well with suburban white-women, blacks and college-aged voters (all necessary voting blocs), that the manner in which she quit in Alaska gives the DNC a huge hammer (multiple, unsatisfactory explanations) and that her experience, while deeper than obama's (hell, so's mine) is not presidential.
Who will show up? I don't know, but it's very early in the season, too early to declare a winner.
Of course the usual half dozen palin acolytes will soon appear with childish insults but who cares...
I’m not thrilled about either one of those either.
I’ve also heard her make similar statements in the past and it has always concerned me. She has also coupled the similar statements with concerns about making “carbon footprints” and other AGW-type language - also a concern for me.
Before I typed my message, I did, and still do, consider that she me be just trying to stay consistent with her previous statements. However, this does not comfort me either because if true, I’d rather her admit that she was wrong than continue on in the same fashion as she has been for political purposes.
I agree that Copenhagen should be boycotted regardless of the emails, which may further reveal her - in my eyes - wishy-washy position on this issue.
I try to not wear rose-colored glasses for anyone - especially politicians.
Yes wishy-washy, just as she has always been on this issue. Research her prior statements she goes further than this while addressing “carbon footprint” issues.
I fully understand the difference between natural climate change and CATASTROPHIC AGW, and her statements indicate that humans have at least some level of control over climate change. Unless she is referring to a weather machine, then her statements should raise anyone’s eyebrows.
Some people may think the earth is warming, while others do not. You have offered nothing (your chart included) to prove that the earth is warming. Any recent warming cycle may well be over, as far as anyone knows. If anything, current data shows otherwise and we won’t know for sure for quite some time.
There is also considerable debate over whether man has caused any warming at any time, no matter now minute. In fact, your own chart would indicate otherwise because these warming cycles, as you admit based on the chart you provide, happen on 1000-1500 year intervals - only the most recent cycle occurred during carbon-based industry, and even that one started at its onset or perhaps before it.
By the way, she is no longer a governor. In regards to her oil interests, she has argued for increased nuclear power and natural gas production to reduce man’s “carbon footprint” with respect to climate change.
I am skeptical of her position on this.
No - her statements were easy to find in plain view for all to see, just like her past statements on this issue.
Those statements disturbed me plenty — see my post #48, where I cited the exact statements from her article that you did. I amazed at the number of people who fail to see or ignore this.
Uh huh. Okay, so...the chart means nothing. Well, thanks for even looking at it.
good...yes, just going for the humor, myself. With you 110% on the Algore cult disgust. But my beef with the scam is the Mann hockey stick fraud program, and the PSU connection. Mann is in serious need of blue tar and white feathers and a rail to ride them on.
Whatever - I never said that it meant nothing, and you can re-read my post to confirm that. In fact, it was interesting to see the 1000-1500 year spread between each 150-200 year warming cycles years.
What your wonderful yet less than all encompassing chart does not do, rlmorel, is prove in any way, shape or form that any recent warming trend continues today or, even it does continue today (which the beautiful chart does not show), that is will continue in the future and for how long. The chart itself has an end date of the year 2000, which is very shortly after the recent cooling tend began - about 150 years after it started, which is consistent with the prior warming trends recorded on your outstanding chart.
Agreed...but if you look at the graph, it does show that we have been in a natural, upward cyclical warming trend since around the middle to the end of the 19th century.
Given that these warm intervals last around 200 years before they begin to fall back to levels conclusively demonstrating that the “warm period” is over and we are beginning to enter a “cool period”, it can be argued that it is plausibly possible we are now in a cooling phase and headed back down in a historic cooling period like the little ice age. However, eight years, 10, or possibly even 20 years are not yet enough.
The point I was trying to make is that even if temperatures have been decreasing since 1998, it doesn’t mean we are in a long term cooling trend.
And that is something we need to be careful of in making the claim right now that the earth is not warming. We need to be able to provide the context and say: “The earth is not warming right at this time. It may go up next year or for the next five or ten years, and historically we should be close to the top, then it is going to go down and we are going to get colder in general. But it isn’t going to get warm enough to put our costal cities underwater, and it isn’t going to get cold enough to cover New York City in a glacier. We have historical precedents for all of this. It isn’t doomsday no matter what.”
If we twitch and jerk like puppets on a string following every tic up or down, we can be sure they will do the same thing, but given they have the media under their thumbs, they will be more effective than us in “educating” the sheep. Heck, we know they are going to do that no matter what, because of the huge money at stake.
Because as quick as we are to say “ah HA! There is snow in September in Boston again this year and man-made global warming is hooey!” The environut-green-statist-alarmists will be just as quick to say “ah AH! It is 65 degrees in Febrary in Anchorage, and the “deniers” are full of hooey! The world is getting dangerously close to the warming tipping point and we MUST act now!”
Basically, their defense starting out is and is going to be “my emails were taken out of context”, “the dog ate my data” and most richly “we are being persecuted because we care about the future of our children and the health of the planet, while all you people care about are corporate profits”.
Once they get done with that, and there is nothing else, they will go back to “This is a statistical and normal anomaly down or flat in temperature, any day temperatures are going to shoot back up and the polar bears are all going die in the tidal wave of water that will cover our costal cities so we MUST act now!”
Liberals are nothing if not relentless. (Just look at their fights for abortion and homosexual marriage)
I couldn’t agree with you more. The upside in this (as long as it helps prevent any kind of national or global cap and tax scheme, because there is no upside if it gets passed) is that Al Gore will be shown for what a cheesy blowhard he really is.
And THAT, my FRiend, is worth the price of admission!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.