AGW skeptics are accused here of being silly when we refer to individual weather events to support our case in the global warming /climate change debate .

For reasons of consistency then I expect to hear the same critique of the Goracle who said the nor-easter we've experienced here in the NY area this week is because of AGW .
Gore Attaches Global Warming as Cause to Last Weekend's Storm in Northeast (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100316061540.aspx)


“Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.”


Of course for as long as can be remembered we in the Northeast corridor have been pummeled by "nor-easters" .Here we call it weather .

So let's hear all those dismissals of "silly" Gore using a single weather event to make his case .

For reasons of consistency then I expect to hear the same critique of the Goracle who said the nor-easter we've experienced here in the NY area this week is because of AGW .Hello tom:

By "them", you mean me, don't you? He said that? Why that silly Goracle.

Is that all it takes to make you happy?

excon

Once again some one has has asked a question which states the bleeding obvious.

Is the Goracle silly, well if drawing conclusions from very selective statistics is any indication, I would say the answer is a very obvious yes. On the other hand, if turning those selective statistics into a highly profitable business I would say no.

You see he is right, when the air over the land is heated it rises, thereby causing a wind. Why is the air heated, because the Earth has warmed, how obvious can you get? Tom, the fact that that very same land has been heating up for say, a short while, like several million years has no bearing on the truth of the statement, however on past performance we need to be alert to the nuiances of the statement. What profitable opportunity lurkes from knowing where and when the East wind blows?

What profitable opportunity lurkes from knowing where and when the East wind blows?

You have to find a way to make a bumper sticker from that line!

You convinced me ,the Goracle is not silly at all .Sly like a fox,but not silly .

I wonder if the silly Goracle will address this: NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/) That's 3 of the 4 major data sets now proven corrupted.

Al Gore hasn't lived in the real world since he had his break with reality in 2000.

I've identified another silly skeptic .
Mr Hockey stick chart himself Michael Mann (you won't believe this one ).
First he had to redefine those of us who don't tow the party line .
We are not the skeptics... he is .
"I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers," he said. "I'm a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation."

Penn State global warming Michael Mann: Penn State global warming Michael Mann - mcall.com (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-global-warming-penn-state-0328,0,4659133,full.story)

You see ,when there is legitimate science ,by definition ,scientists are skeptics. They don't "hide the decline "when a decline is clearly evident in the data. They don't destroy the evidence .They willingly subject their findings to peer review .

I can see why he is uncomfortable surrendering the term skeptic . But a long time ago he lost the legitimacy .He is now a true believer. It is a cheap and tawdry rhetorical trick for which he will be appropriately ridiculed .If he's a skeptic then Pelosi is a tea-partier .


James Lovelock was the oracle before the Goracle.He is arguable the Godfather of the Green movement .
He is the inventor of the Gaia Theory. (organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system.)
Gaia Theory Synopsis (http://www.gaiatheory.org/synopsis.htm)

Now 90 years old even he has turned against the AGW so called scientists .
Lovelock directs his first wave of ire at the reports that climate scientists had been caught up in the email scandal. He was, he says, "utterly disgusted" when he first heard about the allegations....


During this discussion, Lovelock recalls the "corruption of science" that occurred during the attempts to link chlorofluorocarbons with the hole in the ozone layer in the 1980s. "Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do."

Lovelock says the events of the past few months have seen him warm to the efforts of some climate sceptics: "What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: 'Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?' If you don't have that continuously, you really are up the creek.

James Lovelock: 'Fudging data is a sin against science' | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock)


But the"political "scientists forge ahead . The green think tank 'Yale Environment 360 Ted Nordhaus, and Michael Shellenberger argue that

The 20-year effort by environmentalists to establish climate science as the primary basis for far-reaching action to decarbonize the global energy economy today lies in ruins. Backlash in reaction to “Climategate” and recent controversies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s 2007 assessment report are but the latest evidence that such efforts have evidently failed.

While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home.
Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360 (http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2257)
They advocate abandoning the term climate change and instead focus on energy. (from global warming to climate change to energy... just words)

I guess if their advice is followed there will be no more
Apocalyptic lingo .Will the Goracle ,John Kerry and Barbara Boxer be far behind ?
Yes
Cap and trade has been officially dumped from their proposed legislation .
"I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said this morning on CNBC.

President Obama is advocating for the creation of a comprehensive energy plan, and the Senate is currently working on legislation that will address energy independence, create jobs and address pollution.

White House: "Cap and Trade" is Out - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001508-503544.html)
They all work out of the same playbook.

Sorry Tom I must be a bit thick this morning but the point eludes me, is this your way of telling us the US will drop its "cap n trade" free market solves everything idea in favour of comprehensive policy addressing specifics? It may be they will decide that carbon emissions are not pollution after all

I read the Lovelock column the other day and he did take them to task, but he's still on the same team. He thinks humans are just too stupid to handle climate change therefore, "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

Now it does make sense he would open the drilling since the focus is on energy to distract from the agenda.

Clete ;they still believe all the methane dung about carbon pollution .But they know it no longer sells . Their climate bill will now focus on "green job " creation and energy independence . But best guess is that when the 2000 pages of legislation gets released ,it will look a lot like a cap and trade bill.

Clete ;they still believe all the methane dung about carbon pollution .But they know it no longer sells . Their climate bill will now focus on "green job " creation and energy independence . But best guess is that when the 2000 pages of legislation gets released ,it will look alot like a cap and trade bill.

Now Tom you know recycling BS is responsible policy, nothing should go to waste. I'm not sure under the capitalist model how you get green job creation without market incentives, as to energy independence, those are lovely words. How can you be for energy independence which means don't buy imported, and not for employment independence or are all your people going to work in green jobs selling green power to each other, ah Utopia! No more digging coal out of the ground. I'm for deep green energy myself, it's cheap, keeps local employment going and there are ways to do it responsibly