Flashback 2009: John Kerry’s epic fail on an ice-free Arctic by 2015

kerryWhen John Kerry was still a powerful Democrat from Massachusetts, he stood on the Senate floor on June 25, 2009, and said that in five years, the Arctic would be completely ice free (see video at end). Except that prediction, like so many others made by climate alarmists, failed on every level. Kerry also berated fellow senator James Inhofe (R) on his global warming beliefs, who has gone on the record saying that these very same predictions about catastrophic global warming effects are nothing more than fearmongering.

In 2009, Kerry told the Senate, “You have sea ice which is melting at a rate that the Arctic Ocean now increasingly is exposed. In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice free Arctic summer.” Kerry’s divinations on an ice-free Arctic were so off the mark that you have to wonder why, in his position as Secretary of State, he keeps predicting that climate change disasters are just around the corner.

Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is hedging its bets by telling the press that the Arctic will be ice free in 2040, long after those same fortune-telling scientists have retired and moved to the balmy North Pole to sip margaritas in the shade of a palm tree. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger told The Daily Caller that an ice-free Arctic “should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive.”

And John Kerry’s boss, President Obama, doesn’t seem overly worried about the Arctic as he gave Shell Oil the “go ahead” to drill in the Arctic, which prompted some environmentalists to label him a ‘climate change denier’ on Twitter and in a New York Times’ op-ed piece. Maybe Kerry knows something we don’t know about all the oil that’s buried under all that sea ice. After all, “public records indicate that Secretary Kerry personally owned an estimated three to six million dollars in stocks of more than 50 oil and gas-related companies.”

Ron Arnold of The Daily Caller first reported on May 13 that “Records from 2004 show that he’s been constantly and deeply invested in fossil fuels for at least a decade, and is still injecting millions in working capital into the very industries he condemns. What is the public to think of a cabinet-level prophet of climate doom who says one thing and does such another?” Indeed, while Kerry is vilifying climate change skeptics in public, privately he’s investing in the very fossil fuels he blames for the trivial amount of warming over the last 60 years.

{youtube}UdOKE_DxLpQ{/youtube}

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (146)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Sure sure, but did you know John Kerry was a Vietnam veteran?

    It seems that Kerry ([i]AKA[/i] Lurch) has a bit of fence mending to do on the Senate floor. Maybe he can bring in James Taylor to sing a song…

    [i]I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain
    I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end
    I’ve seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
    But I really thought that the Arctic couldn’t mend…[/i]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Before every goofy prediction people like Kerry and Gore make they almost always preface with their get out of jail free card .

    “SCIENTISTS PREDICT “, rarely naming the scientists or any scientific evidence to back up their complete BS .

    So who were the “scientists ” ? Lets see the list of scientists and scientific organizations that claimed in 2009 the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2014 .

    If this was a widely held view in the scientific community why did none of the
    major scientific organizations put forward their evidence to support such a claim ?

    Stupid claims like Kerry’s did some good though it hastened the day when people got fed up listening to global warming hustlers running around in their green chicken little suits yelling the earth has a fever ,the earth has a fever .

    Hence the rebrand to scary climate change .

    Kerry talk is the Republicans best not so secret weapon and they probably hoping for the next speech about scary global warming .

    Can’t wait for the next ” scientists say ” revelation . Why not something like …Scientists say the Antarctica ice is expanding due to climate change at such a rate South America will be under 6000 feet of ice by the next Presidential election .
    If you are going to completely BS people you might as well go big as they say .

    What is scary is these guys are running things for a little while longer .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      BarryDingle

      |

      “SCIENTISTS PREDICT”, or, maybe “Ancient alien climate theorists believe”…

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        good one, I mean it’s very clever

        Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Speaking of failed “predictions”. drewski’s Mann Boy Crush, Mr. Fraudy Pant’s, told a whopper.
    [quote]Michael Mann Says Greenland Is Warmer Now Than When Vikings Farmed There[/quote]
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_9019-may-07-07-48.gif[/img]

    It’s so obvious when you see it right?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    And here we see the Glacier Retreat during the 1940’s Warming that alarmists erased.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_1845-may-13-17-43.jpg[/img]

    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_1846-may-13-17-45.jpg[/img]
    [quote]NASA has recently erased the 1940’s warmth, but data tampering doesn’t grow ice back.[/quote]

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/glacial-retreat-during-the-non-existent-40s-warm-period/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    Before I comment, do anyone know who I am? I been here before.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Drewski

      |

      Are you the sCeptic savior? Here to rescue these poor souls from their life of ignorance, bias and stupidity?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Ahn – Gee – Ess – Kee speaks of stupidity ?
        He must be looking at a mirror.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Why the interrogative prologue ?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        [quote name=”JayPee”]Why the interrogative prologue ?[/quote]
        Well, we’ve had fun here before, is Gator still about?
        And hey, I come in peace.:)
        I just like to hear all sides from time to time, to be honest, it’s more of a socio/cultural reason that I come here. Mostly my interest is to find out why there is such polarization on not just climate change, but just about every dang issue that means anything. Anyways, that’s what I’m here about, ignore me if you wish, or please give me your thoughts, on for instance why does one set of people, you here, think that the ice is fine, while another set, like me, think it’s going to hell? How do these extremes in thought happen? I’d like anyone’s opinion. I’m not here to argue climate change, I’m here to find out why we are so different. Aren’t you all curious about that?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          Well, I for one am different because I am smart.

          Oh, and I also back up my comments with scientific sources.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Not just lies, but accidental hyperbole to the nth degree. Plus, of course, surrealism in everyday life. Please provide more humor,

            ON – JEE – EZZ – KEY

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Yeah OK, but that ain’t exactly what I’m talking about. and again, ignore me if you don’t want to get into this, but see, you said, “I also back up my comments with scientific sources”. Well, so do I, and I’m rather smart myself. OK, we’ve declared, what’s that mean? Who cares?
            What I’d like your thoughts on is why or what is it that causes two smart people to have complete and exactly opposite opinions on issues that are quite self explanatory, at least from each of our views. I say the ice is seriously melting, you say it’s fine. Or beeter yet, you see white, I see black, you know, see what I mean? I consider this an anomaly in human history. Not that opinions differ, but that they differ to an astonishing polarization of thought. It’s as if there are two human species now. It’s weird, don’t you think?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            What that means is that I cite scientific sources and sCeptic cite unqualified non-sources (when they bother to cite at all).

            All you have to do is look at any of the longest threads listed on this site — I am in every one of them over the past few years. In each individual blog, you will find that I reference more scientific studies and evidence than all the other bloggers combined — every time.

            In sCeptic”ese” that makes me a serial liar.

            I invite you do some background research.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            More self-glorification by the know nothing 8th time proven serial liar.

            Yet we’re supposed to think if we don’t demonstrate his inanity immediately and to the nth degree of his satisfaction, any CRAP he annunciates is to be regarded as indisputable truth ad gloriam.

            You reveal yourself with every word

            AHHN – DZEE – AYZ – KEY

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]What that means is that I cite scientific sources and sCeptic cite unqualified non-sources (when they bother to cite at all). [/quote] Like this Paper From the MET?
            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/j/global_temperatures_09.pdf

            “The Met paper, “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”, by J Knight and others, had this to say:

            Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals

            of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

            TRANSLATION – A standstill of 15 years or more invalidates the models.

            It has been over 19 years… All of the AGW Models have failed this Test we like to call the “Scientific Method”.
            http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/occams-razor-the-null-hypothesis-and-anthropogenic-global-warming.php

            Settled Science? 😀

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Where is this a sea extent for? The Arctic? If so, why would it surprise you that it is growing in winter?

          • Avatar

            RancidFessant

            |

            Correct me if I’m wrong but the positive anomaly is for July through August which is summer.

            Why don’t you actually read things before posting?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            So let me get this straight RancidFessant (fitting name, BTW),
            You are saying that this graph above is a PREDICTIVE graph of Arctic sea ice extent anomalies for at least 3 months into the future (with no error bars)?

            And YOU think I don’t read things before I post???

            The Climate Predictive Center makes don’t predict sea ice anomalies. Your graph is a record of HISTORICAL data.
            http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/

            You wouldn’t be related to One Trick by any chance?

          • Avatar

            RancidFessant

            |

            Sea ice extent is irrelevant. It’s sea ice volume and Arctic sea ice has 17% more volume that 2013 which was the so called recent recovery in sea ice extent.

            Or are you just picking the worst looking scenario to support your views?

            http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32348291

            “Arctic Sea Ice recovers to its 6 lowest extent”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/19/climate-change-arctic-ice-sixth-lowest-in-millennia

            So in fact that last winter had much more Arctic sea ice that 2013 but was never reported by Dana. I wonder why?

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            I see you have more “FACTS” for me to look at.

            First, however, I will agree with you that volume is a more important indicator of ice “health” than extent but that doesn’t mean extent is irrelevant. A large extent in summer reflects a lot of solar radiation whereas a small extent allows in petawatts more energy into the biosphere which means warmer waters which means more ice melt which means more solar energy — you get the idea.

            But to say that an ice recovery is underway by comparing ice thickness for winter 2015 to the winter of 2013 which came on the heals of the biggest ice melt in recorded history (summer 2012) seems a little foolish and short sighted. The REAL facts are that the long term trend (1979 to present) for volume loss is even greater than for extent loss.

          • Avatar

            RancidFessant

            |

            I’ve also looked into the reflective component but it’s at such on oblique angle that it’s negligible.

            I did not say ice recover was underway but that Kerry’s predictions were wrong.

            Typical to imply things I did not say.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Oblique?? In summer time, the sun is directly overhead thus the reason there is perpetual day. 17% less thickness (as per your link) is NOT 17% less volume unless the extent is the same. And you apparently have no idea what you say as you DID NOT mention John Kerry as a simple review of earlier posts will attest.

            My God man, is there anything you touch that is not bungled?

            You and Mary Kay are like peas in a pod.

          • Avatar

            Dan B.

            |

            Drewski,
            The sun is never diectly overhead in the Arctic. The closest is about 25% poleward. The curvature of the Earth, is what accounts for perpetual day. Sea ice extent is relevant when it comes to albedo effects.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Sorry Dan,
            I misspoke. During the Northern Summer Solstice, the sun is directly overhead the Tropic of Cancer at latitude 23.5 degrees. However, during entire summer, the higher latitudes receive the greatest amount of solar insolation compared to any where else on earth. Thus the trend of smaller Arctic extents becomes a very big deal indeed.
            This is a very tidy link on the subject:
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/sea-ice-insolation/

          • Avatar

            Dan B.

            |

            Sorry, but Tamino and I have a long history of disagreement. He tends to selectively use data to support his beliefs. I believe he has over-estimated solar insolation on his blogs. Then again, I could be wrong. But Tamino’s history is against him, as far as I am concerned. He has been quite quiet on the subject since the 2012 minimum.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Regardless of your feelings, he wrote a nice and succinct summary of how the sun plays over the Arctic during summer.

            Nothing controversial.

          • Avatar

            Dan B.

            |

            True, his summary was nice. It is his use of numbers with which I have a problem. He has a tendency to twist numbers to fit his means. You know what they say about statisticians.

            Using his analysis, he predicted an Arctic sea ice minimum of 4.13 +/- 0.96 M sq km2 in 2014.

            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-forecast/

            The actual minimum was 5.02, barely within his error margin on the high side. Of course, this was better than his 2013 forecast of 4.03 +/- 0.90, when the actual was 5.10.

            If I am wrong, I will at least admit it, possibly with my tail between my legs. But I will not try to maintain that I am right, by twisting the numbers around.

            Probably too much verbage on my part lol.

          • Avatar

            RancidFessant

            |

            “Oblique?? In summer time, the sun is directly overhead thus the reason there is perpetual day.”

            A very big oops.

          • Avatar

            Dan B.

            |

            Sometimes its is helpful to look at data from a longer perspective. Over the 25-year period from 1953-1977, Walsh and Johnson found Arctic sea ice increased by over half a million square km from 1961 to 1967. The corresponding temperature drop was over 1C.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281979%29009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

            This followed a rather large decrease, which occurred in the 1920s and 30s.

            http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len19.pdf

            http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yes HISTERICAL. Only there is detailed data that goes back a little further. “But they are hiding the Nimbus 5 microwave satellite data, which goes back to 1972 and was included in the 1990 IPCC report. The Nimbus 5 data completely wrecks their story, because it shows that ice in 1974 was no more extensive than it is today, and that NSIDC cherry-picked 1979 as their start date.”

            Arctic ice propaganda at NSIDC depends on graphs like the one below, which cleverly start at peak ice in 1979, and create the deceptive appearance of a linear decrease in ice – intended to fool the reader into believing it is due to CO2 emissions.

            Below is an image from the Nimbus 5 satellite, taken in January 1976 – which shows how detailed the imagery was. NSIDC has no excuse for not using it. It was used in both the IPCC FAR and SAR reports.
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_9237-may-14-03-48.gif[/img]

            Also interesting to note how much Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1976. The gain has been massive.
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/nimbusjan1976anatrcticvsjan20151.gif[/img]

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/more-on-the-arctic-ice-satellite-scam/

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Yes Comrade! Back with the extraordinarily dishonest “trick” of starting your graph during the lowest recorded ice extent of the last century.

            While ignoring data that was included in the 1990 IPCC report. That does constitute a “serial lie”.

            [quote]Climate scientists have determined that time began in 1979, and feel very comfortable starting most of their trend lines in that year. When generating global warming propaganda, it is important to cherry pick the coldest year for starting your trend.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_9195-may-12-08-46.gif[/img]

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I’ll say it

            Andrzeweski is the most dishonest and lying propagandist to have visited this website.

            I’ll call it the way I see it and realize the moderator probably only allows this jerk to maintain open availability and not be accused of screening argument.

            So we’ll have to put up with the octuple proven liar, and why not have fun with the jerk. We have to put up with him anyway. Why not have fun ridiculing him besides.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            That’s the thing, I am sick of these jack asses. You try to discuss anything on their site you get censored, can’t have the floc hearing anything different or sound, but they floc here and other sites and have their say, well if their best is drewski and danny and the others that have shown up before. Then it looks good on them. I’m waiting for harry hammer to show up here again. drewski is the only one that is non stop, the rest sucked it and dives back into the netherworld.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Hey RancidFessant
            Like I said earlier, I’m not here to argue facts about climate change, I am here to ask you all why is it that there is an exact polarization with this and many other issues we are dealing with today. I don’t care whose right or wrong with climate change, I wanna know why there are black and white differences in our opinions, that’s the anomaly I see. Has something happened to the human race to get in this condition of mind and spirit? Is it that conservatives and liberals are hating each other so much that any argument is fine as long as you get the chance to slander your opponent? What’s the deal, why is this happening? More precisely, how is that there are two opinions on climate change that exactly opposite of each other. Did we fix it that way so we can enjoy our hate for each other, do we just like to call people dumb and so we”l make up subjects to argue about? What? And note this, I do this same discussion with climate activist and get the same misunderstandings on my questions. Why is this so hard to address?

          • Avatar

            Dan B.

            |

            Danny Heim,
            I suspect a large part of the reason is the politicization of the issue. The far left and right have taken up sides, corresponding to the two climate change extremes. The nastiness probably comes from the politics, which has always engaged in slanderous speech. People on the left and right get their opinions from their respective politics, rather than science.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Thanks Dan
            Yeah those are some up front reasons, but I believe it goes way deeper than that, for why and what I don’t know, that’s what I am asking. Most all issues get politicized and always have, but these days, and particularly with climate change, it’s gone bonkers.
            I generally just come to the conclusion that hate and anger are too addictive and so we need subjects to distort into good reasons for hate and anger. But that’s hard for me to believe as well..

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Well let me back up a bit there Dan, you made a good point about the far left and right capturing this subject and putting their hopes and values to it in hopes that they can get their ideas of utopia to come to fruition. I admit with no shame that I do that. But I am up front about it, I say that I hope our society will change to a less consuming and more agrarian type culture. Yeah, I’m a big time socialist and others are big time capitalists. But that don’t explain two people standing at the edge of Arctic ice and one saying, “see, it’s not melting, in fact it’s growing”, and the other saying, “no, it’s melting completely away”. Yeah, and standing right there looking at it. Have aliens put holograms on our eyes so we see things this way, making us go to war and kill each other off so they can take over our planet? Well, of course not, but it has gotten to the point that it’s as good an explanation as any.

          • Avatar

            Dan B.

            |

            Yes, hard to explain two people looking at the same thing, and seeing two entirely different things, both of which depart from reality. Something has caused people to put on blinders.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            That’s right Dan, and I hope before I die I can find out what that “something” is to of had us put on these blinders.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] Yeah, I’m a big time socialist and others are big time capitalists. But that don’t explain two people standing at the edge of Arctic ice and one saying, “see, it’s not melting, in fact it’s growing”, and the other saying, “no, it’s melting completely away”.[/quote]

            This is where one needs to apply the Scientific Method Danny Boy.

            What do the empirical observations tell you?
            http://www.andreassen.gl/andreassen/webcam.htm

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            My god amirlach, can’t you see how far out of context you’ve taken my statement? What “I” was talking about there was not the science, I was talking about the political dynamic going on, are you a clone of JayPee or something?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] But that don’t explain two people standing at the edge of Arctic ice and one saying, “see, it’s not melting, in fact it’s growing”, and the other saying, “no, it’s melting completely away”.[/quote] Is the arctic melting away or not? You tell me. How is that out of context?

            Politics has nothing to do with the reality of arctic ice extent or the topic of this thread.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            OK amirlach, I’m gonna stay with you on this until you finally get it. But to get it you’re gonna have to read the entire comment, OK? Now after you’ve read it reply and tell me “what” my comment was “about”, what was I trying to say. And then tell me if it was anything about science. Now here’s a hint, it don’t matter what “your” response is to what I am talking about whether you answer by science or not, but the science of the ice is not AT ALL what “I” am talking about there, get it?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            As you seem incapable of addressing reality. What your “talking” about is of no interest to me. :zzz

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Yeah well you should-a thought of that before you began with your replies, and I don’t think it’s about whether or not you are interested in what I am saying, it’s that you’re just a little too slow to get it. Keep trying.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Your still here?

            Of course you do not want to talk about facts. They might cause you to question your Cultural Studies based leftist views of reality. Might trigger another bout of cognitive dissonance.

            Last time you came a trolling, you claimed you wanted to learn, yet when presented with information you never even looked at it. Did you?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] I’m not here to argue facts about climate change, I am here to ask you all why is it that there is an exact polarization with this and many other issues we are dealing with today.[/quote] It’s incredibly simple. As we explained to you once already. They key to what your asking lies in what you state you do not want to talk about. The FACTS about climate change. IE: That every single CAGW model has failed.

            The Co2 Warming “hypothesis” has been refuted by observations. The Scientific Method has no place for “opinion”, democracy or the delphi technique.

            Only whether you “hypothesis” can be disproven when compared to experiment. “If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong!”

            Every single CAGW model prediction has failed this test.

            Your passive aggressive political science approach is tiresome and irrelevant.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I hate to be so ridiculously redundant, but the alarmist crowd can’t even prove that there is a Greenhouse Effect as they describe it.

            That, of course, should be the end of the argument entirely. But, like typical leftists, there as never an end to anything until they’ve won, regardless of logic, science or anything else.

            Their rule is that until their philosophic thought has won, the question is eternally in abeyance until they do ” win “, no matter how illogically.

            In their thinking, logic and the scientific method are relevant only when it conforms to their thinking.

          • Avatar

            Adrian Good

            |

            [quote name=”Danny Heim”]Hey RancidFessant
            I am here to ask you all why is it that there is an exact polarization with this …

            Rancid one important reason for the polarisation is the fact that governments, who are beholden to the left leaning UN, only fund global warming research. Natural climate change is very poorly funded. The outcome being that only the climate alarm research gets media and government attention.

            Despite vast sums being spent educating primary, secondary and tertiary students, subsidised solar and wind industries, environmental groups, Hollywood and progressive left leaning politicians, nearly 50% of the public remain unmoved and uninterested. That my friend is remarkable and speaks loudly of their common sense.

          • Avatar

            RancidFessant

            |

            [quote name=”Drewski”]Well, I for one am different because I am smart.

            Oh, and I also back up my comments with scientific sources.[/quote]

            I can see your comments littered which such references to scientific sources.

            No verifiable links in any of these

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/mann-uva-emails-released/
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/14/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-5/
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/coldest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-oklahoma-31f-today/
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/coldest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-oklahoma-31f-today/

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            How in the world can you confuse legitimate scientific sources with links to a hodgepodge of WUWT opinions on a smorgasbord of issues and personalities?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Why is it that your “legitimate scientific sources” are all based upon invalidated models and fiddled data? 😀

            They have yet to produce any evidence or make a single skillful prediction. All the while their “confidence” grows.
            [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Amirlach, it’s because Andrejewski is an octuple serial liar and will not get off his fraudulent propensities no matter how many times he’s been slammed to the wall for them.

            He’s taken a mental beating time and again and keeps coming back for more.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            And either drewski is retarted, or believes it so much, or he has investments in this and that includes being paid to do it.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            We think his gran-pappy and Big Ghey Al’s were once business partners… or Love Poodles?

            He is winning though. All that Tiger Blood he’s been drinking.
            [img]http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/0/1/0/2/7/9/Duh-Winning-67516535277.png[/img]

        • Avatar

          RancidFessant

          |

          Ok Danny. What do I think?

          I think there are some major issues which need to be resolved. I am not a conspiracist theroy person but it appears to me that some wool is being pulled over our eyes and the climate debate is being politicised. It also appears to me that the whole debate has been elevated beyond the the realms of normal scientific challenge and that it is out of bounds to challenge findings about AGW although challenging findings process is the normal scientific process.

          To give one example of how the whole debate has become distorted. The 97% consensus argument by Cook and Nuticcelli. They clearly claim it’s 97% of scientific papers but some scientists write a significant volume of papers so if the claim were to be how many scientist it would probably be around the 20% mark.

          I get an uneasy feeling when so many scientists push their conclusions upon us without giving us the real opportunity to decide for ourselves. I think they’ve stolen the ball and are running away with it to play by themselves.

          No you know, about me at least.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Yes Danny, you are like the Luke warmers, like the door to door salesman, keeping your foot in the door just like your doing here. You were sent packing before but like the door to door salesman you wait for your opportunity and try to sound just, but in reality you and drewski are much the same.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        The world inside your head must be quite something to contend with, Me. Are you that freaking scared of someone like me? My guess is you carry a gun and security alarms in your pockets. OK, I’m through slamming you, it’s too easy.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          I ask everybody out there for their evaluation of Herr Heim and based strictly on his own commentary.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            I just flagged his most offensive posts.

            I know it’s hard sometimes not to get offensive back. I do it to, but it’s likely better to just hit the Report link and not get into the weeds with them.

            I would not worry about him “influencing” anyone new me.

            drewski is already there and seems to be the only one who likes him. :-*

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Do whatever you want, but why flag it. He’s revealed himself to the world and why stop him.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Exactly, and the rest of them alike.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            I think I was too harsh on Gator, I’m sorry about that. I guess you can’t give an inch to these arses or they take a mile.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Tell me something there Amirlach, what have I said here that has anything to do with people getting influenced? I been here asking for opinions, how’s that influence someone. and influence on what? Get it? What would I be influencing people on with my subject I brought here, I’m looking for answers, not conversions. Get away from these guys, they are influencing you into their insanity. You can report me all you want, but I’d say these guys got the slamming they deserved and would do it again in a heartbeat for their crazy behavior. It’s one thing to slam someone cuz of something they said, but these guys here, have only one thing on their minds, how can they better slam climate advocates even if they haven’t said a thing, that’s pretty sick. It’s anger sickness, plain and simple, for these boys anyway.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You never said anything about influencing people, “me” said that. I was responding to him.

            [quote] I’m looking for answers, not conversions.[/quote] No, your not looking for answers, you were shown the last time you were here and you simply refused to even look at them.

            Why are you so convinced by a “scientific hypothesis” that has failed every single time it is compared with reality?

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          Not scared of you but the people you influence. You poeple can create a mob mentality or sometimes a loner that will do your bidding.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            But, buddy don’t push it, I’m not a part of any group, and you warmist likes to claim we are being paid by big oil, to make it sound to your narrative. but you don’t even know what your dealing with. So don’t do like that greenpiss arse say we many and you are few, because reality will bite you if you think that. If you want to unite people against you then stay on the course you’re going. You’ll see what people will think of your ways. And the thing is you already know that too.

  • Avatar

    Drewski

    |

    Very easy to check who is delusional Jaypeeing. Why don’t we let Danny do his research?

    And remember, we are talking about scientific peer-reviewed studies, journals and evidence (not Steve Goddard, WUWT, the guy with the fake degrees).

    PS Danny, while you are at it, can you check and see if JayPee has ever submitted one single piece of scientific anything?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      It all comes back to the same basic question, DOPE.

      You can not prove that there is a greenhouse effect.

      You cannot prove that there is global warming.

      You can not prove that there is climate change.

      In fact , all the unadulterated data shows the exact opposite.

      And no amount of lying by you can change that.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Drewski

        |

        You sound desperate Jaypeeing. Is it because you know that I am right (again) about the amount of bona fide evidence I bring to the table vs the “evidence” (chuckle) sCeptics do?

        BTW (and for the umpteenth time), science doesn’t use proof, it uses evidence. And as far as “adulterated” data, have any evidence for that?

        Talk about revealing yourself with every thing you say.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Not sure about “adulterated” data, but you know full well it has been “adjusted” to fit the invalidated model results.

          The Raw Data in no way supports the AGW “hypothesis”.

          [quote]Michael Mann to Tim Osborn, CRU, July 2003

          Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000, AD 1400, AD 1600… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! mike
          p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
          [/quote]
          Oh! The Dirty Laundry… 😀

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            They use nothing but adulterated data. They could never ” establish ” their point if they relied on the truth either in their data points or in theory.

    • Avatar

      RancidFessant

      |

      The guy with the fake degrees or Nobel Laureate – Michael Mann?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    Well, either you all willfully ignored what I was asking your opinions for or you didn’t even read what I was asking about. I said, I do not want to argue about climate change and if you did not like what I was asking about then ignore me. You didn’t ignore me, but you did completely miss the point and responded with climate arguments. What’s the deal?
    Look, I am here in your domain, I am not at all wishing to intrude, convert, debate or make you mad. Maybe you can read my request again and respond to it directly. If you don’t want to discuss this with me then tell me to go to hell and that you’d rather not I come here. I’ll honor it.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Drewski

      |

      Sorry Danny,
      But there is no way in the world that these sCeptics will give an inch when it comes to “honest” opinions — you just have to look at the honesty and quality contained in their daily feast (articles).

      They gladly accept the stupidity poring from the pens of unqualified ideologues but reject the work of experienced PhDs.

      Their opinions are worthless because they are only based upon the opinions of someone else’s opinions never on anything factual.

      sCeptics are fun to play with but they are, for the most part, vacuous and empty bubbleheads.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        Well you know Drewski I can’t look at it that way and get anywhere with what I am asking, as a climate change activist I would agree with you, but then, am I just as dishonest, has someone pulled the wool over my eyes as well? I don’t think so but neither do the skeptics and so I gotta look at that if I want to know why we are differing so dramatically. If I allow my climate change opinions into this, then I’ll get nowhere. I have to take the position that I am just a stupid and just as much a victim as the skeptics.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]They gladly accept the stupidity poring from the pens of unqualified ideologues but reject the work of experienced PhDs.[/quote] Like the word of these 97%-ers who also admit to the same Pause that has invalidated every single AGW Model?

        Jimbo says:

        January 20, 2015 at 8:25 pm

        Here is the pause that never existed. Note the first date they did not notice the lack of warming / pause. Then go down the list through to 2015

        Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
        “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

        Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
        ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
        __________________

        Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
        “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
        __________________

        Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
        “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
        __________________

        Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
        “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
        __________________

        Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
        “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
        __________________

        Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
        “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
        __________________

        Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
        [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

        [A] “Yes, but only just”.
        __________________

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    Maybe I should ask it this way. What is a conservative, and what is a liberal, and how do they differ and why do they differ? Does that help?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

  • Avatar

    Dan B.

    |

    Yes, hard to explain two people looking at the same thing, and seeing two entirely different things, both of which depart from reality. Something has caused people to put on blinders.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Do you people know that John Kerry is a Vietnam veteran?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    …Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
    “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
    __________________

    Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
    “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
    __________________

    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
    __________________

    Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
    __________________

    Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
    “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
    Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
    __________________

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
    __________________

    Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
    “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
    [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
    __________________

    Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
    __________________

    Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
    ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
    __________________
    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    …Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
    __________________

    Met Office – July 2013
    “The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
    ………..
    Executive summary
    The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
    Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
    __________________

    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
    __________________

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
    “They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
    __________________

    Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
    “Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
    Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
    __________________

    Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
    “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
    __________________

    Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
    “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
    “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
    __________________

    Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
    “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
    __________________

    Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
    Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
    “This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
    __________________

    Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
    “…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
    __________________

    Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
    Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
    Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062596/abstract
    __________________
    ==
    Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
    The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
    ….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-014-1358-x
    __________________

    H. Douville et al – 2015
    The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
    The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract
    __________________

    Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth 11 July 2014
    Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
    Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2341.html

    According to Comrade duhh-rooski all these guys MUST be “unqualified ideologues” that reject the work of experienced PhDs.

    Their opinions are worthless because they are only based upon the opinions of someone else’s opinions never on anything factual.

    Like all those failed models based upon false assumptions and fiddled data. 😀

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Yep, pretty much, The term GIGO or as it was stated GI-Joe, Garbage in Garbage out only meets the needs of those pushing their agenda, I call it magic numbers, it means the same. It is someone covering their arse to protect their point of view. So if they doesn’t want to disclose their datanumbers or how they arrived at their conclusions, then you should be skeptical.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        And if people think this GIGO is only based on the era of computers then think again.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Okay Danny here’s an answer to why this is such a polarizing issue as you wish to better understand…

    To many of us it is clear that this has NEVER been about science. Science in this case is simply the clever shill in a game of [i]politics[/i], and here is the tell:

    Regardless of the extremely dubious nature of the science itself, the “solutions” to this pending scientific disaster read remarkably like the 100 year world Marxist [i]political[/i] wish list: Establishment of a one-world autocratic government, forced destruction of free market economics, and usurpation of individual rights – [u]hardly the stuff of science[/u].

    A simple web search will provide many provable quotes from principal drivers of global climate initiatives who clearly enunciate that the climate change movement is PRIMARILY about “social justice” and NOT about science; the ends justify the means…

    This would be equally bad if conservatives were attempting a similar assault on science in the name of “justice” as[i] they[/i] see it.

    Many of us who dissent have deep respect for science and the scientific process, and many of us have advanced degrees these disciplines. I believe we are witnessing an historic scientific era where there must be an accounting for who stood up for true principles of science, and who enabled science to be corrupted by politics on an epic scale.

    This is clearly a scam that stinks out loud and some of us cannot remain mute.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Danny already knows this, he has been here before, and he is trying a different approach to what he did before to get people to go along with his view. He is an alarmist and you should know why already. He is pretending to be a Luke warmer, and you should know they play both sides.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        GR82DRV

        |

        [quote name=”Me”]Danny already knows this, he has been here before, and he is trying a different approach to what he did before to get people to go along with his view. He is an alarmist and you should know why already. He is pretending to be a Luke warmer, and you should know they play both sides.[/quote]
        I could tell that was true by the condescending nature of his posts but I decided to pitch one into his limited strike zone anyway.

        Let’s be less obtuse: Marxists are entitled to their opinions but they’re not entitled to use fraud and deception, especially at the expense of science. If Marxism works so well guys like Danny should be able to sell it honestly on its merits and historical record of success. All we ask for is intellectual honesty.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          You’ll never get it from them. They can’t comprehend what you’ve just said.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          I won’t suggest a re-reading. No comprehension as predicted.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          See it didn’t take much, did it! 😆

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Danny help it, it’s what they are! :-*

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Sorry, Danny can’t help it…….. And you know the rest. 😆

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        Is that right Me? And you sound like a second guessing idiot. Yeah am I radical alarmist, you bet, do you think the whole world is a freaking conspiracy, my god, what’s the matter with you man. I am here for what I am here, I have absolutely no plans to convert idiots like you onto my side, please do me a big favor and stay stay where you are.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          The people who control the various centers of power in the world make their decisions privately and for the common good. Their common good.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Danny Heim

      |

      GR82DRV–It’s funny reading someone as dumb as you trying to sound intelligent, give it up, and don’t talk to me. That crap you and your brother Me was just about the last straw for my tolerance for idiots like you. Your type are what makes your side look stupid, they should dump you guys. Stay away from me.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Danny
    You raise a good question .For right or wrong this is what I see going on .

    Everything humans do has some effect however the effect of human sourced CO2 is proven to be overstated and not be credible .The models are consistently overstating any warming which calls into question the alarmism from public figures who fan emotions by saying things like the earth has a fever and the Arctic will be ice free as of last summer . The IPCC is held out to be credible but the fudge factors in their own reports is well documented . The connection to the UN objectives is to obvious to miss .

    The other group don’t like where the planet is headed including ,population ,pollution ,resource depletion , politically and in some cases capitalism. Man made global warming aligns with their view of things because it is believed
    that shutting down things that create Co2 from humans, including humans themselves, is a convenient path to address their concerns .

    Beyond those basic two camps are the political objectives as articulated by Maurice Strong former UN heavyweight, who articulated that the UN and others needed a cause to galvanize public support for a directional shift. To reform world government that redistributes wealth
    and outsources some political autonomy to a group that wish to ‘humanely” reduce the worlds population , tax behaviour they frown upon , and fund their endeavours under the pretense of saving the planet .

    The fourth group consist of the parasites who want a piece of the Trillion $$ action including carbon traders ,investment bankers , some scientist , environmental groups, some politicians and a globe trotting group of bureaucrats to name a few .

    Of the two first groups one they don’t like what they see and as Maurice Strong intended they were looking for a cause to galvanize public support for distributed government away from sovereign nations .Human generated CO2 would foot the motivation bill and for many of those it does .

    The other group sensed there was something wrong with the “science is settled pitch ” (shut up don’t bother thinking) from promoters . They have good reason to not buy that sales pitch as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years time. Failed models , flat temperatures despite increases in CO2 ,outright coercion by a small group of scientist to shape outcomes a to achieve an end etc.
    This second group resent being manipulated and lied to both scientifically and by self dealing promoters who’s main interest is more money and power.
    That is the inconvenient truth from what I’ve seen of this $$$Trillion boondoggle .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Danny Heim

      |

      Thanks Amber, but I’ve heard all that before and somehow it don’t explain this particular anomaly of the human race. And actually, I ever more so think it’s primarily because we love to hate and we think we need enemies, this is especially so in the 21st Century. But I know it also has to do with much of what you said, but to me that’s a small part, the real deal we have not gotten honest about yet…maybe…I don’t know, I’m guessing.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Do you have a point ? Are you talking for the sake of talking ?

        The ” we love to hate ” , speak for yourself. Don’t push your values / judgments on the rest of us just because you feel that way.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    You know folks I’ve just gone through a great example of what I came here to talk about with Me and and GR guy. I want you folks to look at what Me said after he pissed me off.

    “See it didn’t take much, did it!”

    It’s as if that all he wants to do is slam, and I’m sorry to say the skeptic side has a lot of these kinda people, and yes, so does the alarmist side. They are in this cuz they got anger and this is a way to get it out. Well that’s my theory anyway. I mean what other explanation is there for behavior like that?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      I know of no one who ever expected you to understand.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    OK, I’ll come back another time, the idiot brothers kinda ruined it. But I very much appreciate many of you guy’s responses. Sorry you have people like this in your camp, but we got’em in ours also, it’s a problem. Maybe I’ll come back tomorrow or later tonite. Good luck with your efforts.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This might be an enlightening turn:

    Like many others, I was once an ideological leftist. Big time. I honestly believed that sociological and environmental problems were just a few steps away from being solved by compassionate socialism – if only we could find the right practitioners…

    With time, education, and self-honesty however, I came to realize that socialism [i]never[/i] resulted in true justice of any kind, and in fact it usually devolved into terrible tyranny that destroyed the very people it claimed to uplift.

    Hello pragmatic Libertarianism.

    To this day I have sympathy, if not respect, for [i]true[/i] socialist ideologues. I think these folks want the best but just haven’t been exposed sufficiently to the truth.

    My outrage, however, is reserved for those who, like me, discovered the ugly truth [i]but then did [i]not[/i] turn away[/i].

    Instead these people (Saul Alinsky disciples) [i]choose [/i]to use failed Marxist philosophy combined with [b]fraud and deceit[/b] as a tool to force their will upon others while building personal power and wealth. True solutions of any kind are of no relevance in this system. The primary goal is to seize and maintain power, subjugating the masses by whatever means are likely to yield results.

    Alinsky Marxists are the virus. Climate science is the cell they are currently infecting but they are threatening to spread quickly into religion and other social systems.

    Truth is the vaccine. The question is, “Do we have enough doctors and nurses willing to risk themselves to stop this epidemic?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    “Love to hate” doesn’t cut it with me Danny although by the tone of the discussion many times I can see how someone might conclude that .

    Going back to comments from the UN’s Maurice Strong ,he expressed an open willingness to create a false premise to galvanizing the public to rally support for their world government objectives . In plain language if they had to tell a lie to achieve their goals so be it . All in a good cause they thought .

    Most real Canadians would have a serious problem doing that . It is nice he is a Chinese national now .

    The UN wasn’t the first in history to whip up a crisis only to have the solution readily at hand .

    Most of the public has no idea how big a con global warming fear mongering is because they place their faith in
    people who promote the campaign and they want to believe because it aligns with their own value system .

    if you are looking at a human nature angle there a likely several .
    #!. Some people actually like to be scared .
    #2. Some need to eradicate things they are told are evil . The Burn Those Witches crowd are still around .
    #3. Some want to impose human nature on mother nature and hope to win .

    #4. Some can’t pass up an opportunity
    to scam people out of their money .

    #5. Some like me have a hard time accepting anything at face value when being scolded by some hypocrite who likely couldn’t pass Grade 10 science . The debate is over ,the science is settled .What a joke .

    There is no one reason Danny but if money was taken out of the ‘debate ” global warming (climate change ) would be gone faster than you can say The Arctic will be ice free this summer .

    The unfortunate by product of the global warming hustle is that it has diverted attention and resources away from numerous environment and social issues .

    Can’t wait to hear how they are going to pitch the humane elimination of a Billion people . How else to reduce all those carbon footprints eh Maurice ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Don’t expect “danny ” to engage in objective conversation. He’s a phony shill dedicated to the drewski line of lying. And they might be one and the same.

      You can try to be logical all you want, but they are illogical and will defeat you if you insist on being logical.

      It’s just like any game. If you insist on playing by the rules and your opponent does not, your opponent will defeat you every time.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        They want to play vegas rules, with them in charge, but they can’t do it here, and how many times did we beat them? But it isn’t about that it’s about doing right, and after seeing them, I very seriously doubt what they claim. Call Me a Skeptic then. I’ll wear it proudly. 😀

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        I’ll leave this one with you all on what JayPee says here to make a point on just how far this has gone, and note that I’ve seen climate advocates do this same kinda thing. But not nearly as much as it happens here on this particular site. Sorry but that’s is likely a fact, the only one I’ve stated since coming here yesterday so I guess now you can accuse me of lying, but you gota prove me wrong first. 🙂

        OK, in this post, if you go back through my comments, show me somewhere where I lied, which would be impossible cuz I’ve stated no facts or nothing concrete to lie about, I just been philosophizing. So I guess if one shows up here who is a climate advocate, then I guess you are automatically pinned a liar just cuz your here?? I’d call this extreme paranoia, and that ain’t no lie.

        See you gotta understand how ridiculous all this sounds. I mean if there were a panel here judging these comments from these guys you got here then I’d imagine they’d call off the contest and call the guys in white coats. Many of you are a reasonable, but you have an over abundance of nuts, I’d speculate that it runs at least 3 out of 10 here are nuts. For you sane ones, I’d suggest you do all you can to get these kinda people out of your movement, they are hurting you bad and making it look like something from a mental institution.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          It’ll never be our fault that you ( et al ) can’t stand hearing the truth.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            JayPee my friend, from what you’ve demonstrated here you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the nose.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So sayeth the guy… “I’m not here to argue facts about climate change, I am here to ask you all why is it that there is an exact polarization with this and many other issues we are dealing with today.”

            The left always try’s to argue that everything and everyone has moral relativism. “Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality. That there is no such thing as right and wrong, good or evil.”

            When your dealing with the Scientific Method, there actually is right and wrong. There is what can and cannot be validated through experiment.

            Political Correctness is not one of the steps of the Scientific Method.

            Your simply a troll Danny, you refuse to “discuss” any facts because you have zero understanding of the science or the scientific method.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            I don’t know if you remember Amirlach but I ain’t discussing the scientific method, am I?
            And really I ain’t discussing morality either, Like you just quoted me, ” I am here to ask you all why is it that there is an exact polarization with this and many other issues we are dealing with today.” I ain’t seeing anything moral or scientific in that statement, do you? Maybe you got some kinda tape running in your head that tells you this stuff.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            If you are not discussing the scientific method,
            YOU ARE NOT DISCUSSING SCIENCE.

            If you can’t fathom that, fine. But I don’t see where your proposed barroom colloquy is of any value.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Now you’re gettn’ it Jayppe, yeah that’s exactly it, I am not discussing the science, not with the likes-a-you anyway.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Well if you refuse to actually discuss the “issue” or try to learn about it your never going to get your “answer”.

            The answer lies in the details.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Amirlach, what issue are you talking about, the one I brought here yesterday or climate change??

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It’s your “issues”. I just quoted your words.

            The topic of this thread is Kerry’s failed Ice Free Arctic prediction. Does it look like the Arctic will be Ice Free any time soon?
            [img]http://www.andreassen.gl/andreassen/webcam.htm[/img]

            The scientific method states “When it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong.” Do you think Kerry was wrong?

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            You didn’t quote anything Amirlach, what you’ve done in all these last three comments of yours is take my stuff way, way, way out of context. But then, you know that already don’t you cuz that’s what you meant to do. but if you didn’t, then try reading the entire comment.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] ” I am here to ask you all why is it that there is an exact polarization with this and many other issues we are dealing with today.” [/quote] You did say this right? And I did quote it.

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Again amirlach, you can respond to that statement anyway you like. But if you are trying to interpret what I am saying or what it’s about, then if you are reading it correctly you’d note that I am not talking about the science. I am talking about the political dynamic, the strangeness of this polarization. Also note this part of the statement, “many other issues we are dealing with today”…see, get it? And so I am not going to talk about the science there, see? But if you gotta answer to it by using your understanding of the science then fine, but I AIN”T! Now do you get it?

            Hey you know we’ll probably be friends by the time this is all over. 🙂

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The only reason there is a “strange polarization” is because people like you are ignoring reality.

            No chance we will ever be “friends”.

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. It is all what it boils down to. The Power, Prestige, and Money.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Off note, Danny is most likely trying to psycho analyze us like those other two from Australia, and you know who they are.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    Yeah you know I wonder what this Thomas Richard thinks of guys like Me and Jaypee commenting on their writing. If I were him I’d hope they were in jail or something while my article was online cuz see, if he’s got nuts like this backing him he ain’t gonna get far if he keeps posting where guys like this exist…

    Uooo, it does feel good to get angry at idiots, I can see why it’s so addicting. 🙂
    Think I might do some more while here where it’s acceptable. Or maybe I’ll get lucky and get kicked out; that’d be an honor. But then, your post here would go back to a very few comments cuz you guys would only have drewski to kick. And you need fresh blood, don’t you?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Danny sounds like someone trying to write a story with his theory or take on something already made up . “The love hate relationship ” thing which he floats ignores the reasons most people on this site consider the climate hustle such a scam while others see it as real .

    The problem for the promoters of scary global warming is that because they can’t galvanize the public into drinking their cool aid willingly they can’t pull off their real agenda and it makes them go nuts .

    If it was otherwise they would just ignore those that are not buying what they are trying to sell and move on .

    If someone doesn’t share another persons religion most people accept
    the fact and carry on with their own beliefs .

    This issue, although it has similarities
    to religion, is different for one main
    reason . $$ Money .

    $$Trillions of dollars for those that get a piece of the action .

    No money and the “crisis” is over .

    That is why the climate hustlers cannot have people speak out and they throw an arsenal of misinformation(lies ) and ,intimidation tactics at those not willing to keep the scam alive .

    I agree with Me above that power and prestige are all at the core of it .

    It’s just human nature on a grand ugly scale .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Danny Heim

      |

      Amber you said, “”The love hate relationship ” thing which he floats ignores the reasons most people on this site consider the climate hustle such a scam while others see it as real .”

      Do you really believe this? I don’t know, you seemed to make a lot more sense earlier, but this falls down there with Jaypee and Me. Get outta here girl, it’s screwing you up. And do you really think that I am desperate to convince someone like you about CC? Amber, I gave up on that a long time ago with skeptics. In fact, I tend to just respect their opinion and move on. Therefore, I only usually talk about things like what I’ve brought here this time. If you’ll notice, I won’t talk supposed facts about climate change from either side with a skeptic, you’s gots yours, I’s gots mines. but we have other things in common, like this slamming situation, it’s a real problem; ain’t it? Lotta haters here for sure, but I don’t think you are one of them.

      Now, let’s all gather round and derive that Danny has lured Amber into his lair with his nice talk…watch it amber…I’m gonna get ya. LOL!!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Danny Heim

    |

    Hey you know I’d imagine that when I get like this, with the slamming and all, I bet you guys quit reading me, don’t you. Hurts too much, don’t it?

    OK, well here in an hour or so I’m gonna come back to another article, let’s see what happens. Oh, I’ll be coming in peace again, slams now over…unless you know what.
    PS–you can ask me to leave any time, in fact, you can ask me to never come back, I’ll honor it, unless I forget. vsnp

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Danny
    I do agree the slamming situation is not helpful. I think part of it comes from years of chewing on this topic and we all stop listening to some degree.

    It gets to be a bit like one of those town hall meetings when people start yelling over each other . Nothing gets done .

    If there is one thing in common from what I have seen the vast majority of people who frequent this site on either side of the issue do both care sincerely about the environment and are fairly well informed in part as a result of others here .

    At least there are words flying and not bullets . So there is hope .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Danny Heim

      |

      Amber you said, “I think part of it comes from years of chewing on this topic and we all stop listening to some degree.”

      Yeah I think that is within the processes leading to slams, but the origination of them comes from somewhere else, I think so anyway. It’s that somewhere else I am fascinated by, it’s a mystery to me. I haven’t heard a psychologist, anthropologist or sociologist, come up with an answer; that satisfies me at least. And you know I ain’t set on this “love to hate” thing like you might think, that’s just my best guess. And I gotta say that seeing what happens here with some of these guys kinda confirms it. but this is a small sampling, so…

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        AAAAAAWWWWWWWWW

        Did we hurt your feelings by calling you out. If you can’t stand the heat……………. Why are you here ? To feel sorry for yourself and you’d expect us to join in ?

        Buy your own crying towel, I won’t hand you one.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Danny Heim

          |

          Well I’m sure I’m feeling sorry for myself there Jaypee, but I can say sincerely that I feel quite sorry for you.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Dear Moderator

            This lunatic wants you to kick him off this site so that he can complain of your close-mindedness which is a characteristic of nearly all alarmist sites. Make your own decision, but that’s what he’s baiting you to do.

            So stupid, so easy to see thru and he thinks he’s intelligent !

          • Avatar

            Danny Heim

            |

            Dear Moderator

            As a lunatic, I would not be able to do anything to disrupt your day. And you might want to note that nearly everyone of my comments here are done in engagement with those around me. In other words, they are talking to me as much as I am talking to them.

            And speaking of lunatics, this site is so full of them I doubt you could do much about it anyway. I can see why there is no use in paying attention to your rules, it’d be hopeless and if you did enforce them you wouldn’t have hardly anybody commenting. LOL!!

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Ironic how Danny wants to simply dismiss all who dissent from his opinion as “lunatics” when the OP is about John Kerry saying in 2009 that, “in five years, the Arctic would be completely ice free.”

    Saul Alinsky – [i]Rules for Radicals[/i]; dismiss your opponents as lunatics so as you don’t have to engage in intellectual debate…

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      He will not debate because he knows he is rubbish at it. So he set up the game so he can change the rules at whim.

      It’s like Hiemy’s version of Calvin Ball.
      [img]http://littlebobeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Calvinball1.gif[/img]

      Comrade drewski likes to use this tactic as well. By calling me “One Trick” he thinks he will not have to address the fact that all he ever produces is anecdotal evidence, like his arctic ice graphs that start in 1979. Producing the Nimbus 5 data is a “trick” apparently, so he thinks he can just dismiss it without having to debate it.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Danny Heim

        |

        Well that ain’t why I don’t debate, but you are right, I ain’t any good at it.

        Man you guys are spending a lot of time trying to figure me out, ain’t it? Makes me feel kinda popular, or powerful, like you fear me or something; don’t get that treatment very often…but then, would I want that? I think not…

        How much control you gonna let me have anyway. I’ve never seen a group hang on so long, you guys take the cake. I told you that you could ask me to leave, but here we are….don’t get too concerned as I’m done anyway with this post, I’ll see you all over there at the Popes deal. We only got about one more day of this, let’s make the best of it and maybe get something out of it. I have so far, but you all wouldn’t like it.

        I’ll give the link to my post at my blog on this when we’re done, if we ain’t already. I’m going to be using comments from this deal here, but no names and no location will be mentioned. I should have it done by tomorrow nite and if I don’t, it’ll be cuz I concluded it weren’t worth it, which could happen.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          [quote]Well that ain’t why I don’t debate, but you are right, I ain’t any good at it. [/quote] Do you even read what you post?

          Only one more day? Your out on a weekend pass aren’t you?

          We would love to see your “Blog”. 😀

          Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    There’s another name for Danny Boy.
    It’s called London Derriere .
    Is he from London ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.