Sep 02 2010
What happens when a person has been fed a decade of hyperventilating lies about the end of the world at the hands of greedy humankind, and they then realize the ‘good guys’ (all those lefty white-knights – in their own minds) are losing support from that same greedy humankind? They take matters into your own hands, naturally. That lefty white-knight heeds the panicked calls to action from leftist snake oil salespeople – and acts:
A radical enviornmentalist who took three hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters while wearing what police may be explosives was shot and killed by officers, police said.
In a ramblingÂ manifesto on Lee’s website, believed to have been written by Lee, the writer rails against “disgusting human babies,” “parasitic infants,” and says people should “disassemble civilization.” The manifesto also calls on Discovery to “broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet.”
The manifesto is a must read, at a minimum to see into the warped mind of a radical left wing puppet. The Al Gore’s of the world have exaggerated so much (due to their core ignorance of real science and math) it is no surprise people have succumbed to the conclusion it is now or never (as we saw here).
Humanity is a product of nature (especially true if you agree with the sciences of biology and genetics, and the evidence of evolution). The world of nature is dynamic and brutal. This planet has experienced much warmer periods in Medieval and Roman times, much higher CO2 levels while life flourished and can produce massive destruction and death as seen in hurricanes, tsunamis and earth quakes. We are ants compared to mother nature’s forces.
But to the far left, we are an outsized evil force, and they are God’s gift to nature. An army of holier-than-all-humankind types who are now seeing something even more horrible: liberal governments and policies starting to be rejected. Worse, the scriptures of eco-greens are being shown by real science to be flawed and simple minded. Here is but a small sampling of stories that indicate the fall of the eco-green credibility in the public’s eye.
A serious, international scientific body as concluded the United Nation’s IPCC is wrought with error and bias, and that their conclusions are over-hyped – at best shaky theories, not proof:
Yesterday, after a four-month review, aÂ committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has â€œassigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidenceâ€, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interestâ€.
For instance, the notorious claim that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035 seems to have been based on a misprint (for 2350) in a document issued by a pressure group. When several reviewers challenged the assertion in draft, they were ignored. When Indian scientists challenged it after publication, they were not just dismissed but vilified and accused of â€œvoodoo scienceâ€ by the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
By contrast, when two academics, Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, found a strong link between temperature rise and local economic development â€” implying that recent warming is partly down to local, not global factors â€” their paper was ignored for two drafts, despite many review comments drawing attention to the omission. It was finally given a grudging reference, with a false assertion that the data were rebutted by other data that turned out to be non-existent.
We now know the back story of this episode: the e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia include this from Professor Phil Jones, referring to exactly this paper: â€œI canâ€™t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow â€” even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!â€
The exaggerations and lies were deliberate, to gain headlines and fool the gullible. Trillions of dollars of tax payer money are at stake, so the use of fear and wide spread panic was seen as a legitimate way to gain these incredible riches. Who cares if you scream ‘fire’ in a theatre and people are trampled if the result is you can live a life of decadent luxury and ego-soothing praise in the end? It’s just a few lost greedy human beings.
Another stake in the heart of the Global Warming con was a recent statistical study showing how the temperature proxy record, used to estimate past climate conditions, is all noise with very little if any temperature signal. The study proved mathematically that random numbers predicted temperature better than these so called proxies (using current proxy measurements and modern thermometer readings). They could not predict the current temps, let alone be used to recreate history. William Biggs, a statistician and blogger, summed up the paper’s peer-reviewed results this way:
Statistically speaking, McShane and Wyner emulate Howe by applying a forearm check to the throat to Mannâ€™s proxy reconstruction of temperature, cracking his hockey stick irreparably, leaving his models sprawling on the ice.
It means we cannot tellâ€”using these data and this modelâ€”with any reasonable certainty if temperatures have changed plus or minus 1Â°C over the last thousand years.
As far as we know with any confidence, the current climate is not drastically different from periods of known warm periods like in the Medieval and Roman periods (not surprisingly, humankind makes leaps in evolution and society during these times of warmth and plenty).
Even more damning, the modern temperature record is being proven over and over and over again to be incomplete and imprecise. On top of that, all the ‘adjustments’ made by the high priests of global warming are now under review, and being reworked properly:
To meet 21st Century requirements it is necessary to reconsider our analyses of historical land surface temperature changes. This is about much more than simply re-engineering existing datasets. These datasets were adequate for assessing whether climate was changing at the global scale. This current exercise should not be interpreted as a fundamental questioning of these previous efforts. But these pre-existing datasets cannot answer all the questions that society is now quite rightly asking. They do not constitute a sufficiently large sample to truly understand our uncertainty at regional scales. At monthly resolution they are also of limited utility in characterising extremes in climate and their changes.
The proxies suck, the temperature record sucks, the math used on these two data sets suck, the IPCC process and results suck. Any wonder the public is losing interest and pulling their support?
The rejection of the left is just beginning. Hopefully it will not be anything more than a painful process of waking up to reality. But for some people who are out to save the world, destroying a few greedy human beings may be nothing more than a small price for fulfilling their God’s calling. It may well be the radical left is about to get a lot more radical.