.....U.N chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on (man-made) Climate Change and 2007 Nobel laureate lately? He can't be having the best of days there at the IPCC cause he already has a first-class ticket with extra leg-room to Copenhagen. What mankind might have made just got un-made. Or should I say, got made up. Anyway, maybe he could use a big scoop of vanilla ice cream with that hug.
Yiiiiiikkkkkeeees!!
His name is Rajendra Pachauri---I call him Darth for short----and he thinks all the flack over tampered and leaked climate records and emails is a crock.
The Guardian reports Pachauri's position on fraud-gate as follows:
There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.
Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.
Aren't you glad this man is working for you and me towards a new carbon economy and one big happy One World Government family in spite of growing evidence to the contrary? Like I said, have you hugged your Anthropological Climate Change Authority Figure lately? I haven't, and don't think Roger Simon has either.
They're hell-bent on telling us all what to do, ruling us and everything that lives, breathes and pays taxes. They don't want to hurt us....they just want to help us....and they're not going quietly into the night, either. They think our life styles are unsustainable. They planned to sock it to us in Copenhagen next week, but now they're just looking for more hugs and a few cookies.
For the record, I wouldn't let this man tell me where to get my hair cut and styled either. So there.
UPDATE: Clive Crook changes his tune on ACC and writes about it honestly in The Atlantic. The crux:
Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods--notably, peer review--that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards--at least whenever "the science" calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy.
But White House press secretary presses on towards the goal of ACC for all. Like I said, these people aren't going to let some pesky scandal get in the way of the One World train they're driving to Copenhagen.
21 comments:
You don't have to be a creationist science denier to be against Cap and Trade and other efforts to mitigate Anthropological Climate Change. The problem is that conservatives are hell bent on seeing this as some huge worldwide conspiracy and can't separate it from the scientific facts of Anthropological Climate Change.
This shows how in lock step they are. There are many liberals (like Denis Kucinich) who are against Cap and Trade but aren't science deniers either.
We must remember their level of scientific literacy, 2/3 of Republicans don't believe in evolution. However, you will find the least number of creationists among those with post grad degrees (Gallup). You can see what I'm getting at...
Anthropological Climate Change is a fact, but what, if anything we can practically do to change it is highly uncertain. Unfortunately, conservtive brains aren't wired that way, it's all black and white. If you don't like the politics, you must also deny the science.
Well let's see, Ellen. I believe God created the world and everything in it and also have a degree in math, science and engineering.
My take on ACC is that it is far, far from conclusive and in fact has become so politicized that the scientists pushing it have lost their credibility. Revelations over the past few weeks in England make this scandal potentially the greatest science hoax of all time.
Time will tell in any case, and from my standpoint, the climate has always heated and cooled.
Revelations over the past few weeks in England make this scandal potentially the greatest science hoax of all time.
Revelations regarding a few emails from 3 scientists negate the entire scientific community and all the climate labs from every nation. Is that far fetched grasping at straws or what?
You want to see some real intellectual dishonesty? Remember the Oregon Petition Project that has supposedly elicited 32,000 signatories from scientists?
Check the documentary on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
Oh, and thanks for admitting you are a creationist. That clears up a lot about this.
I certainly believe the Creator made all creation. And it indeed explains not just a lot, but ultimately everything, my dear.
Best wishes.
"Oh, and thanks for admitting you are a creationist. That clears up a lot about this."
Thus Webutante, your admission that you are a Christian, too bad for you...., makes the missing model backup, the changed numbers and the stated attempts to silence those that do not agree with man made global warming all go away.
One can never argue faith with those that do not have faith. It appears to also be the case that one can never argue with those that cannot let facts get in the way of their passion for man made global warming.
The science has been tainted beyond belief. That Ellen cannot tell the difference between fact and theory is apparent.
Anthropological Climate Change is, indeed, not a fact nor is evolution. They are theories.
Oh, and Ellen, thanks for admitting you are not a scientist. That clears up a lot about this.
mRed, you didn't tell me you played baseball and were so damn good at home runs with all the bases loaded.
Thank you from the bottom of my little pea-pickin creationist heart...
Like I said, it is interesting to note that belief in creationism and denial of science increases as education decreases.
How many real climate scientists do you suppose reject AGW science that are NOT affiliated with some conservative think tank or ideology?
Probably about the same number of atheist scientists that reject evolution on a purely scientific basis. About zero.
Ellen,
I think that maybe you should supply some facts to us, the great unwashed, to support your thoughts and statements. You know, from real scientists, not those that reject peer review, facts and scientific ethics.
That you see your bias against those who disagree with your uncurious rock solid stance as a strength is telling. That you need to belittle others is telling as well.
My father was a scientist, scientific researcher and a surgeon who was deeply religious. That he attended OSU Med and Harvard, that he did research making many modern medicines possible and that he was on the cutting edge of what is today called microsurgery was less relevent to others than the fact that he embodied integrity, ethics and an open mind. You see, he believed in creationism and was a dedicated scientist and not only had a top flight education, he also taught his surgical techniques all over the world.
So, back to my original statement, maybe it's time for you to offer some facts to back up your bias against Christians and GW dissenters. Try not to just crib copy from your liberal idols, but please supply some thoughts of your own. Otherwise you sully the debate and, quite frankly, bore people.
Your recalcitrance to open debate makes me wonder at what level of education you decreased your ability to ascertain new facts that point to fallacy of the original point.
I can't improve on what mRed has posted, but as one with a science background, I have to pose some questions and a comment.
Why believe that it is true that "belief in creationism and denial of science increases as education decreases"?
Why believe that it is true that "real climate scientists" who reject "AGW science" are ALL "affiliated with some conservative think tank or ideology"?
Why believe that it is true that NO atheists "reject evolution on a purely scientific basis"?
What is the basis for such dogmatic beliefs? How are the terms defined?
Ten years (out of however many one believes to be the age of this planet) of correlation between a rise in mean temperatures and a rise in carbon dioxide levels does not imply, much less prove, anthropogenic causation. That, along with computer models that contain intrinsic bias and the internal massaging of data to fit a foregone conclusion, is an example of what genuine science is not, regardless of what a person believes about God or creationism.
Double WOW. Your father was a good man and I'm sure you're your father's son....
Think mRed hits the true nail on the head. This AGW issue in not about left or right, educated or uneducated, conservative or liberal...though it's not a long stretch to generalize a bit.
In the beginning, middle and end it---and all other issues we face as a nation and as a people---come down to integrity and often a willingness to grow and change the direction we're heading. It's about being open to new information and also open to admitting when we're wrong. It's not about guilting, shaming, cajoling or over-politicizing other people.
This should be a daily struggle for each of us. It certainly is for me.
Aside from not believing in AGW, coming to the conclusion the climate for millennia has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling---God's brilliant plan---I think many people think there's a huge integrity issue involved in AGW date. Most of us don't want to global economy re-engineered to the tune of trillions of dollars by people who are promoting it for for self-interest when they grind the axe of altruism. I'll be writing more on this...
Thank you, mRed for coming to the ball park in such fine form today. And thank you Ellen for helping us see where you seem to be coming from so we can address it.
....yes, or regardless what a person's political affiliation is. To over-simplify is to miss the point.
Thank you for weighing in on this fraydna. Your opinions and comments are greatly valued here.
The last study I posted was deleted.
Not true Ellen. It was on the other post which I found offensive and not appropriate. You are welcome to try again.
Thank you from the bottom of my little pea-pickin creationist heart...
Well, you might want to learn a little on the most recent science. The 3 part Nova documentary was excellent on that subject.
NO atheists "reject evolution on a purely scientific basis"?
How many examples can you cite to prove this suggestion wrong?
Ten years (out of however many one believes to be the age of this planet) of correlation between a rise in mean temperatures and a rise in carbon dioxide levels does not imply, much less prove, anthropogenic causation.
You are exactly correct... and that is precisely why this so called 'email scandal' is so bogus, because it is the contention of the denialists that the "decline in global temp" since '98 is "proof" that global warming is a hoax. Precisely the period that was allegedly fudged by the scientists.
But logically, this assertion is childishly foolish… the crux of the skeptic argument is that there is just ONE temperature data set from ONE climate lab that has ALL the data in ONE place… and now… it’s ALL gone! We're supposed to believe ALL of the data from ALL of the scientists representing 13 nations and a dozen climate labs is ENTIRELY corrupt and ALL wrong … a big socialist HOAX involving the best and brightest scientists from every developed nation in the world? (kinda reminds me of the 9/11 conspiracy theories)
This is what the wingnut media is in a froth about. Wow.
Ellen. I can't speak for other commenters, but the crux is the scienctists have not been recording accurate data. They've been recording non-existent data and have been perjuring themselves with the public. This is a crime in my worldview.
The second point is that the globe is always heating and cooling. The argument is whether man can affect these cycles in any meaningful way. And the answer I continue to come up with is NO we can't and don't.
AGW means Anthro=man. Man-made global warming.
I believe in GGW, God-made global cycles---both heating and cooling. Or if you like, "galactic" global warming.
Thank you for the links Ellen. Nova does an excellent job; however, whatever the latest science comes up with on evolution it does not sway me from knowing that man is made in God's image and not an ape's. Period.
Two video CDs you might consider buying and watching which were made by scientists who believe in God as Creator are:
"Unlocking the Mystery of Life, The Scientific Case for Intelligent Desiign," and another wonderful CD is "Incredible Creatures That defy Evolution."
I promise that if you watch them, you will never be the same again.
Logos Bookstore in Nashville has or can get them for anyone who's interested. Their number is 615 297-5388...tell 'em Webutante sent you. Great Christmas gift idea.
I agree that the rejection of evolution on a purely scientific basis by all atheists is a suggestion and not a fact. Just because I cannot name people who do not believe God exists and also reject evolutionary theory does not mean they do not exist. Additionally,there are those who believe in God as creator and in adaptation of species over time but not in evolution of one species to another, as well as believers in God as creator who accept evolutionary theory as a part of God's creative process.
The problem that some skeptics have with the anthropogenic (note - anthropological refers to the study of humankind, whereas anthropogenic means caused by humans) global warming/climate change theory is not the "email scandal", though that is a troubling symptom. Recent apparent declines in temperature simply point out, as Web says, "that the globe is always heating and cooling."
The question is whether man-made activity has any appreciable effect on mean global temperature. And a look at a ten year period, or a hundred year period or longer (if we even had the data) is not statistically significant and does not take into account the many other factors affecting global mean temperature.
This theory seems to be a very flimsy premise on which to base the complete revamping of the world economy.
And should that even be necessary? If one genuinely believes the theory, personal decisions can already be made to live with a smaller carbon footprint.
However, how many are ready to give up their lifestyles for a return to the metaphorical horse and buggy days? I might be able to believe that some people take this seriously if their own lives model a low energy and low consumption lifestyle, but when I see how Al Gore - the ostensible leader of the AGW/ACC movement - lives here in Nashville, regardless of the "green" gadgets in his mansion, his lifestyle belies what he claims to believe.
Great points, fraydna! Thank you as always for taking the time to make them so clearly and well.
Again, so much of this is an integrity issue for me: When people's thoughts/theories line up with their actions and lives, then that's what I call integrity. The 12 steps call it "walking the talk."
When theses things don't line up, then, something else is going on....dare I say some other idol worship like money, power, prestige and influence.
Of course these are issues all fallen humans struggle with---or should---each day. But it's especially relevant to the AGW crisis now unfolding here on Planet Earth.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue. Posting here forces me to stop and think clearly before expressing my views instead of just repeating soundbites that I've heard.
I agree that integrity is at the core of these issues in our lives. And I have found that only through my relationship with Christ can I begin and continue the process of becoming wholly and truly who I'm created to be, not that I'm there by any means.
I wholeheartedly agree with you fraydna. The further I go the more I believe that true maturity is only found in our long-term walk the Christ. I too am far from there. Yet still on my way, His Way.
Thank you for both your participation and your prayers. It makes a difference.
Post a Comment