You do realize you shall be counted by the climate change deniers as a convert? A previously blinded liberal wacko who has come to Petrojesus, regardless of your post's actual content.

You do realize you shall be counted by the climate change deniers as a convert? A previously blinded liberal wacko who has come to Petrojesus, regardless of your post's actual content.

That's the plan. Denial unto death.

All too soon it's going to become obvious to sane people that the

sorry, the blog didn't like my
less-than 1% stuff... trying again...

You do realize you shall be counted by the climate change deniers as a convert? A previously blinded liberal wacko who has come to Petrojesus, regardless of your post's actual content.

That's the plan. Denial unto death.

All too soon it's going to become obvious to sane people that the <1%-funded denier bullshit will be the cause of the deaths of millions of people.

Nothing short of a total energy breakthrough can save those millions now from the direct effects of climate change and the inevitable knock-on effects of war, disease and disruption.

And time is running out for even such an energy breakthrough to prevent mass casualties.

But as far as our owners are concerned whatever happens to the rest of us is irrelevant as long as the <1% are not held accountable for what they've wrought.

And the most we can do at this stage is try to keep those millions of casualties from becoming billions...

It is an issue of mental illness, not economy. Power corrupts, which means that it drives its unaware victims insane.

Excellent ... but its more like 99% percent (vs 90) of scientists and they have created a worldwide hoax "to enrich themselves," not crash the economy.

The crash the economy part is big oil's internal view if "the hoax" were it ever widely accepted and its implications acted upon.

Ought to be Big Energy (Oil, Coal, NatGas, Nuke), not just Big Oil. Furthermore, what evidence exists clearly points out Banksters and ilk are those guilty of crashing economies.

"Furthermore, what evidence exists clearly points out Banksters and ilk are those guilty of crashing economies."

Those claims by the minions of the <%, of DFH's wanting to crash the economy, came before the minions of the <% ... er... crashed the economy.

The claim now is that those evil DFH's will cause the economy to crash again if anyone tries heeding the writing that's so clearly engraved on the cliff wall we're all hurtling towards...

Sill stuck in the '60's ... the Smedleys are doing Smedley while some of us resist.

The joker face in the first scenario gave the show away. That's got to be what's happening. The second scenario is too boring.

The conspiracy of fossil fuel industries is working. A systematic, well-funded propaganda campaign has increased doubt and confusion about the reality of human-caused global warming. Unfortunately, global warming is a true problem and demands public support for solutions commensurate with the threat. A budget of $2 trillion per year (approximately what is spent worldwide on wars and military preparedness) would do the job. See http://www.dolphinblue.c...n-to-Global-Warming.html for an update on the feasibility of one solution.

Find out who paid for East Anglia's PR firm after the first batch of emails (Climate-gate 1) and you might be closer to the truth.

Also, you forgot to include taxpayers in the upper right of your illustration:

Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC

Read Richard Lindzen's presentation.

Meanwhile, GMO's, Radiation, Oil Spills, chemical poisons make our toxic world even more deadly while clean-up efforts are pissed away on a relatively innocuous CO2.

Ah, JT, we see you buy into the 150-year long global conspiracy of scientists. Good job!

For anyone genuinely interested in understanding the actual scientific evidence --- and why every single major scientific & research organization in the ENTIRE WORLD backs the scientific evidence --- please get all your climate change denier arguments fully DEBUNKED at SkepticalScience.com.

J.T. - Love ya, but you've drunk the extra strong kool-aid on this one. Sorry.

Scientists are easily fooled. Examples are abound.

Notice the destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11. It brings about almost no "experts" stating the obvious: fire did not bring it down.

Notice long-term Lyme disease. It still is not beong recognized as a disease because insurance companies have bought the medical journal writers.

Man-made global warming seems to be tons of fear mongering. Notice ZapKitty, I mean c'mon, you want to put some accuracy to that fatalist statment? When will millions of people die and from what exactly?

"Green" solutions like lightbulbs from China are not the way.

"Green" solutions like millions of new hybrids are not the way.

I think it's many of you who have fallen for a re-invented capitalistic gain based on fear.

Environmental stuardship is a must for anyone in their community. We must keep our communites clean. No one wants to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air. However it really is simple and does not require BUYING anything.

Steer clear of programs that take away local control of resources, too.

It's the reaction to scrutiny that has solidified my doubts. That said, this thread is nowhere near as shrill as past encounters.

I've had a lot of time on my hands to watch this story develop. I've watched how everyone ignores the significance of the CLOUD/CERN studies combined with the desperate attempts by the CAGW crowd as they blame the lack of a warming trend on volcanoes, China's sulfur emissions, ocean currents, and even the burning of fossil fuels.

When the weather gets cold that's extreme, don't you know. Caused by CAGW. Right.

Sorry, but the Climate-Gate II emails are truly devastating. Whomever hacked East Anglia's CRU was very smart. Let everyone provide scramble, PR, and cover over the first batch - then BLAM! release the more devastating batch in the second round -

And,to be honest with you, I don't need a scientific panel to examine them for me and tell me what to think about them. I'll read them myself, thanks.

Why is it that nobody understands the significance of a scientific research arm of a university investing in a PR firm? That always goes in one ear and out the other. Absolutely amazing.

Meanwhile, nearly all domestic catches in the United States are unsafe to eat...

J.T. Waldron @ 15:

When the weather gets cold that's extreme, don't you know. Caused by CAGW. Right.

Which part of the long-ago predicted, scientific explanation for that (shifting jet streams, excess moisture in air, etc.) do you disagree with? And why? What science is that disagreement based on?

Sorry, but the Climate-Gate II emails are truly devastating.

Really? Which one(s)? Can you point me to a specific email I should look at? Perhaps I've yet to see it.

Why is it that nobody understands the significance of a scientific research arm of a university investing in a PR firm?

Given the unprecedented assault they've faced, from both criminal hackers and multi-million fossil fueled propaganda, why *wouldn't* they want to hire someone to handle the response to it, rather than being put out of "business" entirely (ala ACORN) thanks to a faked "scandal"??

Brian Romanoff @ 14 said:

I think it's many of you who have fallen for a re-invented capitalistic gain based on fear.

Or for science. But whatevs.

Steer clear of programs that take away local control of resources, too.

Really? So what should be done, for example, should West Virginia decide to quadruple the amount of coal it burns, stops all EPA rules which limit how many toxins it can put into the air, as they subsequently drift off into neighboring Ohio, choking off the air and poisoning the water? Just leave that to the "local control" of the coal plants in West Virginia to take care of?

The second batch (5,300) of emails puts to bed the idea that what was implied in the 1st batch of emails was taken out of context.

Click here to access them.

For concision, the basics (and I am just touching the surface here):

2nd batch:

Emails involving IPCC lead author Keith Briffa burying a study that failed to create a desired outcome.

The overwhelming theme in all of these emails is the idea that information presented to the IPCC needed to "tell the story" of catastrophic global warming.

Email 4047, May 2001, Mike Hulme: "The earlier part of the morning will 'sell' environmental science in the broader context, before we sell the particular challenge of climate change."

Another reason why the CLOUD/CERN studies are so important:

Email 4160 "I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback. Meanwhile, the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians."

We not only get a better understanding of what they don't know, but dissenting scientists (the type that no-one would admit even existed a year ago) were very articulate about the politicization of science.

An exerpt from a Steven Hayward article:

"Peter Thorne of NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), who earned his Ph.D. in climate science at East Anglia in 2001, wrote Phil Jones in a 2005 message, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” An appeal to “context,” which the climate campaigners say is crucial to understanding why excerpts such as this one are unimportant, does quite the opposite, and only points to the problems the climate change campaigners have brought upon themselves by their tribalism."

This notion that it's somehow smart or desirable for a scientific body to hire a PR firm for the purpose of 'combatting adverse pr' that results from leaked emails suggests some sort of equivalency between two sets of activists. On the contrary, the science should stand up for itself. It shouldn't need a PR firm.

The significance of hiring a PR firm in the wake of the first scandal is relevant to this post. The question should be, "who paid for such an exorbitant PR firm in the first place? Taxpayers? NGO's? the University? That directly relates to your illustration.

Sure gasoline fumes are toxic and cause increased incidence rates of cancer and dementia. That should be reason enough to curb gas consumption.