Let's take that at face value (which I don't). How do we know things are getting warmer because my wife drives an SUV and we cherish a carbon rich lifestyle? Rosenzweig tells us so.
Science by anecdote is not science. It's public relations. It's Algore's computer animations (the obvious ones and the faked). It's using government money to get a bunch of people to cherry pick events and claim the abundance of incidents is overwhelming evidence.
If AGW skeptics had similar resources, I suspect we could assemble a similar report showing overwhelming evidence of global cooling or anything else we wanted. This is not neutral science. This is advocacy from a person with a definite point of view and bias.
What kind of bias? How about the fact that Cynthia Rosenzweig gave $2,300.00 to Hillary Clinton. Her husband split $2,000.00 between Hillary and Obama. Sure, that's her personal business. Lot's of New Yorkers give thousands of dollars to Democrats. It doesn't affect her "science."
Hey, if you buy that last one, I've got an AGW theory to sell you. Okay, she's got an ideology. Is she qualified?
When Oregon state climatologist, George Taylor was fired for skepticism about the theory of anthropogenic global warming, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, "He's not a climatologist." Uh, he does hold the job title. Well, he did.
Similarly, Canada's Dr Tim Ball is criticized by AGW crusaders as not being a climatologist. He responds, "That's absolute rubbish. I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College."
It's a favorite tactic of the left to challenge the credentials of anyone who counters the AGW orthodoxy. Yet, the new heroine, Dr Rosenzweig, is not a climatologist." She is an agronomist.
When she strays out of her field, she's been known to get herself in trouble. She's one of the proponents of the spread of malaria and other diseases because of global warming. This has been soundly refuted. However, I bet she continues to promote it.
This may be a nice person, but she is an AGW radical who protested that the most dire IPCC Report wasn't dire enough (Click here and scroll down the yellow text box). BTW, the most recent reports dropped or softened many of the most dire projections.
At best, her work should be greeted suspiciously. She's got a clear point of view, is operating outside her field, has strongly promoted the most radical AGW views, and has been proven wrong before (of course, that's true for all of us - but most of us don't claim infallability).
Someday we need to elect a real conservative who will shut down GISS.
This would all be harmless if the politicials weren't using it as a means to control industrial production, tax us into poverty, enrich themselves, pick and choose winning companies and industries, and generally create a form of totalitarian enviromarxism. Unfortunately, all three candidates standing are proponents and there's not a dime's bit of difference between them.
If we're going to get this stuff shoved down out throats (and we are), I'd rather a Democrat did it so we can rally the troops and oppose it, rather than split the party.
