If The AGW Debate Is Settled, Why The Different Answers?

Funny stuff from those who are supposed to be “the experts”

Which is it–6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Unsurprisingly, they were the only two to testify before the committee. God forbid they call others with other views. Anyhow, science isn’t about guessing, or pulling out Gandalf’s Palintir. It’s about hard answers.

…Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a Republican member of the committee, told CNSNews.com that the discrepancy “raises the issue of the credibility of proponents of the argument that the globe is both warming and the cause of that warming is man-made from greenhouse gases.”

“These are the two most prominent–at least from the standpoint of government position–scientists in the nation on this issue, and they can’t agree,” Shadegg said.

“And yet, we’re being told the science is settled, and Mr. Gore is saying there’s no longer a debate. That’s funny, it looks to me like–there may not be a debate, but there certainly is not a consensus and there certainly are discrepancies by the two top scientists within the government supposedly on the entire topic.”

Bingo! And through all Holdren and Lubchenco’s alarmist testimony, they still failed to do one thing: link the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age mostly or solely to Mankind.

This couldn’t all be about money and control, could it? Especially money

A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.

The Tata Group headquartered in Mumbai anticipates receiving windfall profits of up to nearly $2 billion from closing the Corus Redcar steelmaking plant in Britain, with about half of the savings expected to result from cashing in on carbon credits granted the steelmaker by the European Union under the EU’s emissions trading scheme, or ETS.

Hmm, like Gore, Pachauri could make a boatload of money by pushing junk science that causes countries to sign treaties and pass legislation that forcibly takes money from it’s citizens and moves it around. How is this different from an organized crime scheme?

Good news from California, though! The Governator will fly to Copenhagen, with an entourage of 20, to share California’s climate change story. No mention of whether Arnold will discuss Cali’s unemployment rate of 12.5%, 4th worse in the USA, nor having one of the highest costs of living in the country. Passing out IOUs in place of tax refunds and payment for services. Budget woes. Etc. But, hey, let’s slap some more taxes and restrictions on people. That’ll work!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “If The AGW Debate Is Settled, Why The Different Answers?”

  1. Reasic says:

    Teach,

    I’ll let you in on a little secret. The science isn’t settled. The phrase “the science is settled”, which really hasn’t been used by very many prominent scientists, was meant to describe the position of scientific literature on whether the planet is warming, primarily as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases. Period.

    This is a straw man that has been used by deniers like you to cause confusion. You have expanded it to every subject within climate science, which was not the original intent. If you’re talking about climate science on the whole, as in understanding fully and completely the effect of a warming planet on our ecosystem, then no, of course the science isn’t settled. There’s still a great deal to learn.

    Having said that, though, one must also understand that there is only so much that can be known about future projections. Such projections depend upon many variables, such as projected fossil fuel use, which no one in their right mind could pretend to know. A discrepancy of 2.5 ft between two different sea level rise projections hardly “raises the issue of credibility”. Only a hardened denier would make such a claim.

  2. Reasic says:

    Okay, now I’ve read through the presentations, and I see that once again, Mr. Shadegg (a denier) has misrepresented the statements of these officials in order to make a political point, and people like you have just blindly passed it on.

    If you read Dr. Lubchenco’s testimony, you will see that she rightly referred to a sea level rise projection of as high as 3.5 ft. However, Holdren doesn’t refer to this same number. The 6 ft number that Shadegg seemed concerned about came from a paragraph in which Holdren was talking about potential “tipping points” in the system, which could result in much greater sea level rise than the projected numbers.

    See? It’s that easy. You take something out of context, and you can make just about any point you want, seemingly supported by the “facts”. What a wonderful game deniers play.

  3. Otter says:

    According the the oceanic dept at US, the oceans have not risen AT ALL in three years.

    According to another scientist who has been following ocean levels for his entire life, sea-level increase has been BELOW average for the past 50 years.

  4. Reasic says:

    Any links?

  5. Trish says:

    It’s settled. Reasic said so. Or needs links.

  6. TFMo says:

    It’s his usual dodge, Trish. If you give him links, he’ll insist they’re Kool-aid. If you tell him to look them up for himself, he’ll insist they don’t exist. Gaia Herself could manifest in human form, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, and tell Reassic to his face that AGW is a scam, and he’d still demand links. And probably STILL not accept the truth. He’s a lib-troll hack, typically gullible, and typically a hypocrite; an excellent foot soldier in the Cult of O.

  7. Reasic says:

    I’m not surprised you don’t understand why I want links, TFMo. YOU people always pop in with very vague generalizations that you try to pass off as arguments, and never provide any evidence for them. Let’s take Otter’s second claim, for instance. I could take his argument as fact without question (drink the kool-aid), as he apparently has, OR, I could try to find out more information. Who is the scientist that he’s talking about? Is he referring to global sea levels, or regional? Sea level rise over what time period has been lower than over the past 50 years?

    See? I need more info. “Gullible” describes more closely what you’ve done (blindly accepting vague assertions without more details or any form of evidence).

  8. TFMo says:

    I know exactly why you want links, Reassic. I believe I explained it pretty well in my prior post, based on what I’ve observed of your posts here. And as I told Trish, it’s pointless to give you links, because you don’t accept anyone as an authority on the subject unless they are agreeing with the agenda, facts be damned.

    WE do read reports, from both sides. WE compare what we find to see where the bullshit line is being crossed. WE find that the AGW crowd has repeatedly hidden data, ignored data, and invented data when the real facts and figures tend NOT to agree with the agenda. WE looked up our own information, did our own research. If your own research is still telling you that these people are trustworthy, then you’re intentionally allowing yourself to be conned. In which case, talking to you or providing you with information is utterly pointless. You’re a leftist ideologue who has nothing better in his life than to come onto blog sites where you KNOW you don’t agree with anyone, attempt to start arguments, and disrupt discussions. This is either due to the common elitist view that only you can save the world from us poor dumb hicks, or you just perversely get off on annoying people. Either way, you aren’t worth the effort.

  9. Otter says:

    Word.

  10. Reasic says:

    Yes, TFMo. I know you don’t want to be proved wrong over and over, but you still should try to show some proof for your claims. I’ve really just been trying to see if anyone here was applying themselves, and it’s become reasonably obvious that you are not. There is not an ounce of objectivity left in this place. You won’t provide sources for fear of being proved wrong, and you claim I’m the one who is being conned? If you’re so obviously in the right, I would think it’d be easy to prove yourself. However, when asked simple scientific questions, you freeze like a deer in headlights. Maybe the world isn’t so simple as you make it out to be.

    Oh, and the same goes for you, Otter. I’m simply amazed at how you people just show up with your vague talking points, and no one questions any of it. That’s how nonsense gets passed through the interwebs. Good luck with that.

  11. TFMo says:

    Okay, we’re all demagogues, none of us can listen to reason, none of us know how to think. We’re all Flat Earthers, hiding our heads in the sand. We’re completely irredeemable, utterly hopeless. It’s obvious that we’re all too dumb and blind to see the glorious light of your reason.

    Feel free to leave.

  12. Reasic says:

    Hallelujah! You have SEEN the light!! lol.

    You know, acknowledgement is the first step. I’m proud of you, man.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9651 access attempts in the last 7 days.