This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.

The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?

By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.

Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.

Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.

Useful links:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

Pages: « 181 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 » Show All

  1. 4251
    Brute Says:


    Seriously…………you guys be careful.

  2. 4252
    peter geany Says:

    Hey Brute 16,000 police were on hand last night in London. Guess what there was no further trouble as far as I have heard. Just goes to show.

  3. 4253
    Brute Says:

    Poor Al Gore. The frustration is starting to affect his sanity as his climate fraud empire comes crashing down.

  4. 4254
    tempterrain Says:

    Hi ,

    I just thought I’d drop by to see what your take was on the UK riots. I’m just a bit disappointed there is no intelligent comment. Just Brute mouthing off as usual.

    It just strikes me that the government need to get a grip and it’s good that the opposition are urging them to do just that.

    There may be those who would make excuses for mass criminality, and they may well consider themselves to be Marxist too. However, I would suggest that Marx would be a lot less sympathetic to this rabble than most of them might imagine.

    They need to read up on what he had to say about the lumpenproletariat. “dangerous class” or the “social scum”.

  5. 4255
    Alex Cull Says:

    Peter M, I think Marx was accurate with his description of the lumpen proletariat; however, he was writing in the 19th century, and things have moved on a bit. This is perhaps a fanciful comparison, and might not hold up, but in 21st century Britain at least, I think we now have something of a “lumpen aristocracy” – unused to work, their material needs taken care of by the labour of others, and as we have seen – and also in the manner of traditional aristocrats – afflicted with ennui and not averse to raising hell in the midst of working communities they feel detached from and have no stake in.

    There will be consequences in the UK, I suspect, where it comes to climate change policies. After Copenhagen and the last few cold winters, climate change was already becoming low in the public’s list of priorities. This year we have had announcements of major hikes in the prices of gas and electricity, petrol prices remaining high, and now a number of very serious breakdowns in public order. Who now, would be overly concerned by their carbon footprint, when faced with the prospect of being maimed and robbed in the street, or their home or business burnt to the ground, or their disposable income reduced to a fraction of what it was, due to fuel bills? What public appetite will there be for more of our resources to be channelled into building a low carbon economy, at the direct expense, perhaps, of bolstering our existing economy and providing such essentials as policing and infrastructure? I’m prepared to be wrong on this, but I think the answers to those questions are likely to be a) fewer people than ever, and b) not very much at all.

  6. 4256
    manacker Says:

    PeterM and Alex

    Being a bit removed from the scene I may have gotten this wrong, but I have heard that the riots were caused by a grass-roots groundswell of public indignation and rage following the selfish and anti-scientific refusal of China, India and the USA to commit to drastic carbon cuts at Copenhagen and Cancun, coupled with the frustration that UK government support for aggressive climate change policies is faltering.

    Am I wrong?


  7. 4257
    geoffchambers Says:

    Brute #4253

    Here’s the transcript of Gore’s rant:

    “… that the moral they innovated in that effort was transported whole cloth into the climate debate, and some of the exact same people by name – I can go down the list of their names – are involved in this. And so what do they do?, They, they, they, they pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message “this climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat, it’s not – it may be volcanoes”. Bullshit. “It may be sunspots”. Bullshit. “It’s not getting warmer”. Bullshit. But, and there are about ten other memes that are out there, and when you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back, ah, at you. The same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted the shit – there’s no longer a shared reality on, on, on an issue like climate, even though the very existence of our civilisation is threat- people have no idea. And yet our ability to, to actually come to a shared reality that emphasises that there’s evidence – It’s no longer acceptable in, ah, mixed company – meaning bipartisan company – to use the goddam word ‘climate’.”

  8. 4258
    Alex Cull Says:

    Max, re the groundswell of public indignation, we’ve had that already – that was Zero Carbon Britain Day, on July 16th! Scores of people – maybe even a hundred or more – took part, and it was splashed across the national press. And just look at these crowds!

    Geoff, you have captured the man’s effortless eloquence, perfectly. “They have polluted the shit…” Such poetry.

  9. 4259
    peter geany Says:

    PeterM You want to know what happened. It was easy. The police shot a known crim, after coming under fire. A police officer was hit, but by a police issue bullet: oops. Bit of a police balls up.

    A protest was organised which was peaceful. A few stirrers turned up and the Police attacked some demonstrators whilst not having enough backup if things got out of hand. Whilst the Police were distracted some yobs looted some shops. The police stood back, being out numbered and others thought this is OK lets do it some more. There was no cause just some wanton destruction in the knowledge that the police would do nothing.

    Now the recriminations start, but the root cause is a lack of respect for authority, and the fault for that are those in authority; our political leaders and their agents such as the police. Our Political leaders no longer represent our views, and the police spend all their time hassling the ordinary person pursuing all manner of minor issues with vigour, filling out their allocated numbers of stop and searches, whilst avoiding getting involved with rooting out real criminals. We have had too much left wing influence on schooling with no discipline, a curriculum that rewards mediocrity, sentencing that is no deterrent and public sector that has its snout in the trough. Of coarse the only people who can’t see this are the so call liberal left and our Politicians.

    An over simplification of coarse, but never has the middle class had such a low opinion for those in authority. And if we feel this way then those at the lower end must feel a sense of complete alienation. And it is set to get worse before it gets better as the EU continues on its path to forced monetary union against the wishes of almost all those who they pretend to represent and to the ultimate destruction of Europe.

    Yes Peter AGW is alive and well in amongst all this real turmoil. Remember I said it won’t be until we are out of money that we rid ourselves of AGW. Well we are all out of money, and even China, which has much of our cash, is in reality out of money, as it will have to bail out all its regional governments.

  10. 4260
    Brute Says:

    I wonder how much evil CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” were released wantonly into our precious atmosphere over the course of the rioting?

    Will the London town fathers issue citations for excess carbon emissions?

    Maybe PeterM can explain to the rest of us the reason for the looting and destruction……..after all, it was his like minded comrades that committed the acts.

  11. 4261
    manacker Says:

    geoff and Alex

    Regarding Gore’s outburst, I’d say it looks like he is “losing his cool” as the world is beginning to see through the “dangerous GW” fallacy.

    But why should he worry?

    He got an Oscar (and even a Nobel Peace Prize) for his sci-fi movie plus made close to $100 million since he left public office and moved from being “the next President of the United States” (as he put it).

    OK. The really big bucks have moved out of reach as his carbon trading venture has collapsed, but he shouldn’t be greedy – and instead be satisfied for the millions he has been able to milk out of DAGW while it lasted.


  12. 4262
    tempterrain Says:

    Peter Geany,

    Well of course you’ll know better than me what’s going on there. From what I’ve seen from afar, it looks like the civil disorder has harmed people who don’t deserve to be harmed, and I guess that’s the nature of civil disorder. The wrong people get hurt so it is to be avoided at least IMO.

    Also looking from afar, it seems noticeable that civil disorder has returned to the UK after a long period of calm. Is this connected with the nature of the government, would you say? Is there more civil disorder under the Conservatives?


    I see you’ve taken up my suggestion about sticking to ranting about Al Gore. You are much better at this than the mathematical stuff, so I’d say it was a good move on your part.

  13. 4263
    manacker Says:


    No “ranting” about Al Gore needed – as you can see, he’s doing all the ranting himself!


  14. 4264
    peter geany Says:

    PeterM Civil disorder is not directly linked to the conservatives, especially at present as we don’t have a conservative government. If anything the Coalition is worse than Labour was. All the talk of reducing government and putting local people back in charge has been thrown out the door because we invariably chose a course that doesn’t fit with Cameron’s grand plan.

    Despite the BS you may pick up in the news down under there have been no cuts. and the public sector is still dragging the country down. Its not the bin men or nurses or teachers that we are feed up with but it seems every council MD is earning more than the PM and all the Quango’s and consultants they use some of whom are earning thousands of pounds a day. None of this can be justified, and we were promised it would change but it hasn’t.

    We have a climate change officer in every council!!!!!!!!!!! Prey tell me what they do!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing as I can see because we certainly have not got any global warming and have had yet another disappointing summer with temperatures only occasionally getting into the mid 20′s and cloud that is 20,000 foot thick.

    The only cuts Peter have been to the front line to preserve the bloated salaries of the new breed of public servant that was created by Labour. This the party that is supposed to represent the working man. All they have done is reward their cronies and the un-working class. The real working class and the middle class are now suffering with no political party prepared to represent them.

  15. 4265
    manacker Says:

    Peter Geany

    We have a climate change officer in every council!!!!!!!!!!! Prey tell me what they do!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing as I can see because we certainly have not got any global warming and have had yet another disappointing summer with temperatures only occasionally getting into the mid 20?s and cloud that is 20,000 foot thick.

    Isn’t that a sign that all those “climate change officers” must be having an impact?


  16. 4266
    peter geany Says:

    Hi Max perhaps what I was alluding to (rather poorly) was that they have nothing to do as we haven’t warmed. But the real point is the chronic waste of money that we the tax payer are powerless to prevent.

    But it appears that the Euro only has a few more days or a week or so to live before either Germany bails it out unequivocally, Germany leaves the Euro, or they muddle on and cause catastrophic failure of the Euro and Europe’s banks.

    2 of these are decisive and one is not. 2 will work and one will not. Which one will the politicians chose?

  17. 4267
    manacker Says:

    Hi PeterG

    My remark was tongue-in-cheek, of course.

    What will the politicians do?

    Based on past track record I’d guess option 3: “muddle on”.

    But back to the UK: the new government has not embraced the past one’s madness regarding the “climate catastrophe” quite so eagerly (no more “50 days to save our planet”), but why has it not totally rejected it? Is it not true that public (i.e. voter) sentiment has swung against the past government’s AGW hysteria? If so, why are the MPs not getting the word? Why is taxpayer money still being squandered chasing windmills? Is this simply a matter of time lag or is the democratic system broken?

    It is baffling me, as a Swiss.


    [TonyN says: That's a very shrewd question, or series of questions, and I'm sure that finding answers is what UK climate sceptics should be focusing on at the moment. Perhaps clues lie in the very disparate political aims of the two parties that form the present coalition, and the transitory nature of an administration which is probably the best that could be cobbled together at a time of crisis rather than what the country needed or wanted. Dumping the green revolution would be high risk at the moment, and no party in the UK is in a position to take risks of any kind. The public may be becoming cynical about what they are told about AGW, but it would still be all too easy to make any party which tries to forge new, and less politically correct, policies on this subject look uncaring and irresponsible. Then there is the immense political (and very well resourced) clout of the eNGOs which may now be wielding power over public policy in the same way that the unions enjoyed pre-Thatcher.

    It's all rather baffling to this Englishman too!]

  18. 4268
    manacker Says:

    Welcome back TonyN.

    We missed your comments and active participation (on your blog).

    It almost seems to me that a groundswell needs to occur to force a change in the timid, AGW-inspired or AGW-corrupted politicians.

    The UK public has a history of “stiff upper lip” silent suffering. One could argue that this appears to have disappeared as witnessed by the recent riots, but these may well have had more of a criminal “flash gang” root cause than general public dissatisfaction with the government.

    The facts of the matter are a) that most of the major industrial nations of the world have no intention of curtailing their economies to reduce CO2 emissions and b) that the CO2 emissions of the UK are so insignificant (1.7% of world total) that completely shutting them down completely today (at immeasurable cost and pain to the UK public) would have an imperceptible impact on global temperature by the year 2100 (using IPCC assumptions, the averted warming would theoretically be 0.03°C).

    There are certainly thinking people in the UK who see that the “PC” climate hysteria is driving a weak (and divided) government to pursue silly and economically unaffordable “green” pseudo-solutions (which are no solutions at all). It would seem logical to me that these thinking people would form a grass-roots opposition to this potentially disastrous direction and apply pressure on their MPs to change government policy on AGW when there are much more pressing problems to be addressed.

    There is no question that there are very powerful interest and lobby groups working to keep the current status quo in place (viz. your earlier thread on the “very convenient network”), so it would take a very strong groundswell to counteract all this pressure.

    It appears that in the USA such a grass-roots movement (the “tea party”) has been able to become a very influential voice opposing government policy even without a single strong leader.

    I do not know if such a thing would be possible in the UK in view of the different historical backgrounds.

    Nor do I know who the leader would be if one were required.

    But I am pretty sure that something should be done before you are all sold down the river by a weak and poorly informed government that is trying to do the “PC” thing without having a clue.

    Just my thoughts on this, as an outsider.


  19. 4269
    Brute Says:

    peter geany Says: But the real point is the chronic waste of money that we the tax payer are powerless to prevent.

    Case in point………………..


    Got stimulus money, promised 800 jobs…

  20. 4270
    Brute Says:

    Seattle’s ‘green jobs’ program a bust

  21. 4271
    tempterrain Says:


    You may say there have been no cuts but that’s not the way the kids see it in London.

    This video pre-dates the riots but they are predicted on it.

    Many of these kids look perfectly Ok to me, but if they don’t have a job and don’t feel a part of society then they are going to get themselves into trouble and cause trouble at the same time.

    So, I do agree that the UK government has to draw the line and say that rioting is unacceptable, but they need to look at the underlying causes too.

  22. 4272
    tempterrain Says:

    Problem with Link. Try This one:

  23. 4273
    James P Says:


    I liked the phrase “a time of eco-giddiness”. I rather hope that is how the last decade will look in a few years!

  24. 4274
    Brute Says:

    Peter M,
    So I suppose that the “underlying causes” must be government paid food, government paid healthcare, government paid education, as well as numerous other social protections (funded by working Brits).

    Britain…………..a fine example of a socialist Utopia…….where your every need is paid for by someone else…….and yet these savages are still prone to steal televisions, designer clothes and electronic equipment given half an opportunity.

    Here we have a millionaire’s daughter, a ballerina and a university student caught in the act of looting.

  25. 4275
    Brute Says:

    Here’s a video of these poor “disenfranchised” people swilling stolen wine and causing mayhem.

  26. 4276
    tempterrain Says:

    I don’t think Britain is socialist in the 21st century. If it ever was, it would have been in the period after the war when the many of the big industries in the Uk were nationalised, and there was free education at university level. I would say Mrs Thatcher put an end to that period of British history.

    Although the Brits like to deny it they are all terribly class conscious. What accent you have. What school you went to. Who you parents were etc They all go silly over Royalty.

    Social Mobility is very low in the UK

    They like to think they lead the world at this and that but its really just wishful thinking. Mind you, having said that, they have suddenly produced a very decent cricket team out of nowhere, so there is hope for them yet if they just get their act together!

  27. 4277
    peter geany Says:

    PeterM The reason for the riots are many and varied, and I don’t want to debate them simply because I don’t have the time to do the subject justice. But it was most definitely not due to anything those opportunists have had cut.

    As to the Cuts, the only part of the UK that has seen cuts are the private sector. And this is simply because we in the private sector don’t get any government money. Richard North made the point today about our ridiculous expenditure on off shore wind turbines, and to put the operating subsidy into context related it back to proposed cuts in our health care budget. Get rid of these stupid monstrosity’s and our health budget is safe.

    More over we know they don’t work and so we will still have to build standby Gas plants to inefficiently run at low power setting ready to take up the load. And the Power companies are asking for a subsidy to build these plants. And as we know most power from wind is produced at night when we can not use it so the actual useful output will be less than 10% of installed capacity.The bottom feeders and pond life we have in power at present are setting new standards for stupidity. This will undoubtedly manifest itself during the next euro election.

  28. 4278
    peter geany Says:

    This author puts it all far more succinctly than I ever could

  29. 4279
    tempterrain Says:

    Peter G,

    What proportion of Government spending would be classed as “green” in the UK, in your opinion?

  30. 4280
    Brute Says:

    NYTimes: ‘Green’ jobs flopped…

  31. 4281
    peter geany Says:

    PeterM That is a good question for which I don’t have an authoritative answer. Too much I would say, but I think that a direct answer to your question would come up with an answer of “not very much”.

    What I would say is that the emphasis of our spending has shifted, where we now spend vasts amounts that yield very little. Wind power is one area and bio-fuels another. Not only do we subsidise construction, but we subsidise production. In the past this would have meant the consumer not paying the total cost of production directly. Today it means we pay an excess for production as we are investing in extraordinarily inefficient production methods rather than the most cost effective.

    It will all come to a grinding halt soon. It can not have escaped your notice that the markets have been almost universally unimpressed with the political leadership in Europe and the US. Our own leadership in the UK rather than taking the lead and suggesting the only option they now have left in Europe, namely that Germany and its northern Friends (excluding France) leave the euro, so that the rest of Europe can devalue and grow their economies, have suggested that the euro zone accelerates fiscal union. This raises many questions over democratic legitimacy.

    It will be recalled that both France and the Dutch rejected this idea when it was written into the EU Constitution and it was dropped. The Constitution was re-written as a series of amendments to existing treaties and in this way was just adopted by all the EU governments without the need for a referendum. However the Irish did hold one and rejected it. Huge pressure and and much bribery was used to convince the Irish in a rerun to vote yes. The UK was refused a referendum as the answer would have been NO.

    Now to relate this back to your question, rather than continuing to improve our collective standard of living, the liberal left governments of Europe have perversely only managed to divert money from the middle and working class to the growing unworking class and to their moneyed Friends. And perversely the more they try to control the markets, the greater the uncertainty and volatility in the markets and the more money is lost by the working and middle classes. Their green schemes have been a classic case in point, with rich land owners able to make money for doing nothing productive or useful with otherwise wilderness land.

    The idea of trying to produce useful amounts of electricity from solar energy in the UK is another area that hits the working class hardest whilst enriching landowners and property owners. Much regulation revolving around industry, manufacturing and waste collection and disposal is motivated by the green movement. Companies employ people to monitor their “carbon footprint” and craft pages of bull sh1t convincing the public that they are green and take reducing carbon emissions. All this activity is just waste and contributes nothing other than to increase costs and this in turn causes the government to spend and borrow more.

    Now I’m off on holiday and hopefully some sun, because there has been very little here this year.

    [TonyN says: Have a good holiday, and this may cheer you on your way Other countries have to take note of the US experience]

  32. 4282
    Alex Cull Says:

    Re offshore wind in the UK, the writing has been on the wall for some time, even among some supporters of renewable/low-carbon energy, that it is too expensive and being implemented too quickly. Here’s an extraordinary argument that took place on Channel 4 News in September 2010, when the Thanet wind farm was opened off the Kent coast (transcript here.) Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation said that “the levels of wind contemplated by Government seem, to many of us, reckless, economically and technically”.

    In May this year, Lord Adair Turner of the CCC warned that “offshore wind at the moment is more expensive than either onshore or nuclear”, and that “it’s the scale of the increase in offshore over the next ten years, in particular, which is just driving in particular the increases in electricity prices”; his advice was to reduce offshore wind targets by 15% – 20% (transcript here.)

    And last week, Professor Dieter Helm talked to the BBC’s David Shukman (video here and transcript here), as reported in today’s Telegraph by Christopher Booker. Here is what Dieter Helm said:

    Well, if you look at the costs of offshore wind, and indeed if you look practically at what is involved in building an offshore wind farm, it’s inherently complicated, it’s in a difficult environment, and it’s unsurprising that it is really, almost staggeringly, expensive. I mean, if you want a kind of, sort of ballpark order-of-magnitude of cost, here, offshore wind is one of the very few things that makes nuclear power look cheap – and it certainly isn’t cheap, nuclear power. And the only thing that makes offshore wind look a cheap way of reducing emissions is the kind of stuff being stuck on people’s roofs – solar panels and so on. So what we’re doing is choosing, effectively, the most expensive way of reducing emissions first. And we’re doing it by an enormous commitment to this one technology. And the sorts of sums involved are of the order of a £100 billion, to be spent by 2020. That’s just for the wind farms. Then you’ve got to put the transmission in place, all the systems, all the backup. That’s probably another £30, £40 billion on top, at least. So we want £150 billion to build these wind farms in less than ten years. You can work that out as billions per annum. And then, ultimately, you have to ask yourself: and who’s going to pay? And you might like people to pay. You might like customers to pay, you might like industry to pay. But they actually have to be able to do it. And given the extent of fuel poverty, and given the state of our economy, I doubt it can, in fact, be afforded.

  33. 4283
    manacker Says:


    “Social mobility” (as you put it) is arguably lower in the UK than it is in Switzerland and lower in Switzerland than it is in the USA.

    Now, interestingly, I would say that (of the three) “socialism” is most developed in the UK and least in the USA.

    A. Is there a trend here?

    B. Or is this coincidental?

    C. Or are the two not related at all?

    What do you think, Peter?


  34. 4284
    tempterrain Says:


    I’m not sure that ‘what I think’ is of such importance. Lets look at the facts and gather some figures from different countries.
    I’ve found this graph which suggests that the UK is only marginally better than the USA in terms of social mobility. Switzerland isn’t included unfortunately.

  35. 4285
    manacker Says:


    This updated study shows UK has lowest “social mobility”.


  36. 4286
    tempterrain Says:


    Yes, this looks pretty much the same as my graph. So, maybe the “old dart” and the USA, should learn from countries like Australia, Denmark and Finland? Certainly in Australia there has always been the tradition of “the fair go”. That means that everyone , no matter what their social background, should have the same life chances as everyone else. There should be no heredity privilege, as there seems to be in the UK and USA. I support that concept 100%.

    However, we do need to ask, if the USA and the UK do want a society based on social mobility? Maybe they don’t? They are always snakes as well as ladders in the ‘game of life’.

  37. 4287
    James P Says:

    “snakes as well as ladders”

    Indeed. Politicians always seem to forget that ‘social mobility’ can be in either direction!

  38. 4288
    James P Says:


    If onshore wind farms are of debatable value (even with subsidies) then offshore wind must be totally bonkers. As an engineer with some North Sea oil experience, I shall be very interested to see, a) how they are constructed and b) how long they survive. Once a few seize up or get damaged by winter storms (when it will be too rough to repair them) I can see the whole idea being quietly dropped.

  39. 4289
    Alex Cull Says:

    James P, re the harshness of the North Sea environment, here’s an interesting article on the website of GL, a German maritime engineering company, that stresses the fact that these are still early days for offshore wind farms, which require an extremely strong protective coating for turbines against corrosion:

    Proper corrosion protection not only means long-term cost-savings but is also a safety-critical issue. “But safe operation of offshore wind farms – also in regard to corrosion protection – is not yet guaranteed for the expected 20-25 year lifetime,” said Christoph Kraft, engineer with E.ON Climate & Renewables. Even when repairs on the anticorrosion system already have been done, their strengths and weaknesses will not become apparent until the offshore wind turbine has again been in operation for some time.

  40. 4290
    manacker Says:


    “The science is settled”, said Gore
    “So let’s tax and do research no more”
    But to Gore’s consternation
    There’s a new explanation
    Which nobody thought of before.

  41. 4291
    Brute Says:

    Solar company touted by Obama closing — despite $535 million from feds…

    1,100 ‘green jobs’ gone…

  42. 4292
    manacker Says:


    Do a quick calculation to cheer yourself up.

    You know about how much income tax revenue the USA had in 2010.

    You know how much direct income tax you paid in 2010.

    You probably don’t know how much indirect tax you paid, but double your direct tax bill for a rough estimate.

    So you can figure out how much of the $535 million came out of your pocket.

    It really wasn’t all that much, and it was for a “just cause”, wasn’t it?


  43. 4293
    Brute Says:

    Hey Max,

    The trouble is that this isn’t the only shakedown of the US citizen……there are hundreds of thousands of these theft schemes. As I write this, my share of the debt is $131,000………..add Mrs. Brute and that’s $262,000 that we “owe” per this household.

    Call me crazy, but I take money (my property) being stolen personally.

    Obama’s plan is to loot and pillage………to strip every nickel of wealth from productive Americans and hand it over to his selected cronies to buy votes and fund his Marxist Utopia.

    That’s what’s happening in America at this moment under this regime.

    Read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky…………this is Obama’s playbook.

  44. 4294
    Brute Says:

    New Science Confirms: Earth’s Temperature Determined Not by Taxes and Regulations but by Sun

    Science is never truly settled, but when it comes to global warming, it’s getting close:

    The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

    The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

    In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

    The left-wing establishment has been doing its best to keep a lid on this breakthrough, but in the end, truth will out. Already liberals are becoming desperate enough to start playing the absurdly irrelevant race card to silence skeptics. As with their race-baiting attack on the Tea Party, this is a sure indication that they feel the wall against their backs.

  45. 4295
    manacker Says:


    Your 4293 sounds very gloomy for the USA.

    The bit of news we get here on the US debt ceiling / economic crisis (probably copied from the NYT in the left-leaning press here) is that the crisis can be blamed on the right-extremist Tea Party for blocking administration plans to invest in infrastructure projects. Sounds fishy to me.


  46. 4296
    Brute Says:

    The bit of news we get here on the US debt ceiling / economic crisis (probably copied from the NYT in the left-leaning press here) is that the crisis can be blamed on the right-extremist Tea Party for blocking administration plans to invest in infrastructure projects.

    Hey Max,

    Is that the same New York Times that was pushing the carbon credits?

  47. 4297
    Brute Says:

    Der Spiegel: Global Warming Now Causes Sea Level Drop! ‘AGW, leads to strange weather shifts, which is now cause of unexpected & ‘biggest sea level drop ever recorded’ in satellite era

  48. 4298
    Brute Says:

    This is shaping up to be a deep, deep scandal. Seems that the Obama Administration has been funneling taxpayer money to this solar panel manufacturer in exchange for political contributions.
    The company has since gone bankrupt.

    BURNED: WH pressed on $500M loan to solar company now under investigation…

  49. 4299
    Brute Says:

    Great news: Green-jobs subsidies created 1 job for every $4.85 million spent

  50. 4300
    manacker Says:

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

    Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “globalwarming is occurring.”
    The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
    Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
    “I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.
    Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is inconvertible.”
    “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
    “The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.
    A spokesman for the APS confirmed to that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
    The use of the word “incontrovertible” had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
    “The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”
    Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.
    Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
    The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was “not at all likely.”

Pages: « 181 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 » Show All

Leave a Reply


9 − = seven

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha