« Spotlight@Northern with Peter Augustine Lawler | Main | Obama Okays Keystone XL »

Sunday, February 26, 2012


larry kurtz

Fail, Doc! Half of the elemental mercury (Hg) has been released into the biosphere by human activity: now multiply the combinations by the others on the Periodic Table.



So there's an AWG "agenda"? Just what might that be KB?

Ken Blanchard

A.I.: ask Peter Gleick. He seemed to know. The agenda is simply to persuade the world's governments to drastically restrict carbon emissions in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. To put it mildly, it is inconvenient for the anthropogenic global warming agenda if the globe isn't warming or is warming muchm more slowly than we have been warned, or if the warming isn't anthropogenic, or if the things that the climate change community has been urging us to do don't make any sense even on the basis of the AGW hypothesis.

Donald Pay

Don't ask KB anything. He's just passing the gas that flows through the echo-chamber. If he could bottle it and sell it, it might solve all our energy problems. The denier industry and their ideological lackeys don't really care about the science, as is evident in KB's selective quoting of the scientific articles he cites.

What did one of the authors of the study actually say about this. Here's a section of the Guardian article not quoted by KB.

Bamber said the data from the study should not be interpreted to mean that climate change has been "overblown in any way". He said: "It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction.


Silly me, I thought the agenda might be to seek truth regarding the causes of global warming and the effects thereof.

Of course the billions and billions of dollars in vested interest shared by those most actively denying and railing against the idea of AGW are not a factor in the creation of the "debate" over climate change. These folks are deeply concerned about the future of the planet and have no alterior motives whatsoever. But the money-grubbing scientists looking for another grant fix, those are the people we should fear and loathe.

Noblesse Oblige

A thoughtful piece.

According to Thomas Kuhn's history of science, AGW would probably have transformed by now to another paradigm more closely aligned with physical reality. But Kuhn could not have anticipated the rivers of money that would keep this corruption of science on life support long after it should have transformed. Alas we will have to wait a bit longer.

Mark Anderson

"I don't know and neither do you" You got that half right Ken.

larry kurtz

Rather, rivers OR money: http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/

Mark Anderson

Here's a good site for some solid knowledge about global warming. It's run by NASA:http://climate.nasa.gov/ By the way it's certain that the earth has warmed over the past century, not almost certain. Here's a good wikipedia site for that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years.

Bill Fleming

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair


Great quote Bill, but the word "understand" limits its applicability to the level of rhetoric often employed in regard to AGW. All to often, I here people say: "I don't believe in global warming." as though its a religion or as Santorum would say, a "phony theology".

Bill Fleming

A.I. well yeah, there's that. When you're of the mind that "critical thinking" is a sin, it's time to get deprogrammed.

Of course, for many it might just be a variation on the theme.

Wave enough money (or weapons) in front of some people and it's not too tough to make "true believers" out of them.

Fear and greed, man.

That's still pretty much the working synopsis of Marketing Strategy 101, (sad to say).


Actually, I thought it was the AGW people who were after the money. By continuing the hoax,if it is one, they continue to get funds from government and donations. As for critical thinking, it seems to me it is the AGW people who refuse to think critically. The people who actually question whether AGW exists are called fools, earth haters, blasphemers, etc. So just who is against critical thinking? Yes, that Upton Sinclair quote is appropriate.

john davidson

Ken and Bill,

Hope I'm not violating a rule here but please circle back to the gay marriage topic and provide an answer to the simple question or two posed in the last couple of posts. I don't think you normally duck issues, prob have not had time to check back.

john davidson

larry kurtz

jd: they are too smart to engage earth haters like you.


Of all the charges leveled at climate scientists, yours dugger is the most despicable and among the least credible. It assumes these scientists have no personal integrity what so ever. What proof do you have that they are perpetuating a "hoax" to bilk their funders out of grant money? Why would they risk telling unwelcome truths to power unless their findings were credible? Why would they not conspire instead to promote the fossil-fuel industry contention that all is well as that would no doubt increase their grant "income".

D.E. Bishop

That is a wonderful photo. The Northern Lights are incredibly gorgeous.

Ken Blanchard

DEB: thanks. Yes they are.

The comments to this entry are closed.