Pat Sajak - People concerned about climate change are racists

[crimsonaudio]

CA, we used to call the examples in your graphs spurious correlations

Yah, as I said above, graphs indicating correlation are meaningless without vast amounts of data. They can point in a direction, but I've grown beyond weary of people (all over, not just here) posting graphs as if they do anything but indicate correlation.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

i get tired of the assertion that scientists are just making crap up for funding. it's an absurd notion.

No more absurd than the notion we go to war so Halliburton gets a bunch of money. I don't understand why you would think scientists would be any less human than anyone else.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I'm reading an article in National Geographic on "How to feed 7 billion people every day.". It just re-enforces my belief that we need population control. The need for more grazing and harvesting lands is causing more forests to be cut down. Also, more rice farms and livestock are contributing to higher methane emissions.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I'm reading an article in National Geographic on "How to feed 7 billion people every day.". It just re-enforces my belief that we need population control. The need for more grazing and haresting lands is causing more forests to be cut down. Also, more rice farms and livestock are contributing to higher methane emissions.

Stupid programs like ethanol subsidies are having a huge impact: http://foodorfuel.weebly.com

 

[G-VilleTider]

Stupid programs like ethanol subsidies are having a huge impact: http://foodorfuel.weebly.com

One of the most brilliantly corrupt scams ever. Bad for the environment, but sold as green - check. Vilifies fossil fuels and rich people - check. Sheeple falsely believe the media and politicians that it is a good idea - check. Scammers get big checks from the taxpayers - check.

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

Thought this April blog entry from longtime IPCC lead author, economist Richard Tol, was interesting. Other than his pushing of a carbon tax, I mostly agree with his perspective. He makes some very valid points about the IPCC.

The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think. Academics who worry about climate change are more likely to publish about it, and more likely to get into the IPCC. Groups of like-minded people reinforce their beliefs. The environment agencies that comment on the draft IPCC report will not argue that their department is obsolete. The IPCC should therefore be taken out of the hands of the climate bureaucracy and transferred to the academic authorities.

I was particularly pleased that the statements below mirrored my own sentiments from a few pages back.

Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick. Others only see incompetence and conspiracy in climate research, and nepotism in climate policy. A polarized debate is not conducive to enlightened policy in an area as complex as climate change

First Link

Another well-organized piece by the same author, though I'm sure many will dismiss it off-hand since it was published by Fox News:

Second Link

Given its flaws, should the IPCC be disbanded? That would be pointless. Climate change is a problem of the future. Climate policy responds to forecasts of the future rather than measurements of the past.

There are large climate bureaucracies around the world, who exist by virtue of climate science. If you abolish the IPCC, the climatocracy will create a new IPCC. The IPCC should therefore be reformed.

Here are some suggestions:

Away with the infrequent, massive set pieces. Away with alarmism – that has been tried for 25 years, with no discernible impact on emissions. Away with activists posing as scientists. Away with the freshman mistakes.

Just good, sober, solid science. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I'm reading an article in National Geographic on "How to feed 7 billion people every day.". It just re-enforces my belief that we need population control. The need for more grazing and harvesting lands is causing more forests to be cut down. Also, more rice farms and livestock are contributing to higher methane emissions.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/#.U4AS4_ldXng

 

[bamacon]

I'm reading an article in National Geographic on "How to feed 7 billion people every day.". It just re-enforces my belief that we need population control. The need for more grazing and harvesting lands is causing more forests to be cut down. Also, more rice farms and livestock are contributing to higher methane emissions.

This is all a conspiracy devised by Big Cork! Their evil. Probably run by the Koch brothers. Bastages!