It didn’t take the former Governor of the largest state (in terms of physical size) long to respond to the current Governor of the largest state (in terms of population) after he criticized her “stance on global warming“. Seems kind of strange when a politician whose popularity is waning takes on one who’s popularity is waxing. Maybe Arnold is playing to the sentiments of the politically correct set in the Golden State.
Also seems Schwarzenegger, just like those in the media, got that good woman’s stance wrong. In her response on Facebook, Sarah Palin pointed out:
While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters.
Emphasis added. And there you have it. In just nineteen words, she gets at the biggest problem in the Golden State. Our elected elites want to regulate our way to perfection, to show how much better they are than the rest of the country.
And the unelected bureaucrats are helping out as well. Just last month,
the California Energy Commission approved a groundbreaking series of efficiency standards for televisions, the first time government at any level in the United States has meddled in the details of how our boob tubes are made. The new rules set maximum power-consumption standards for TVs of up to 58 inches, starting in 2011 and becoming considerably tighter in 2013, and prohibit California retailers from selling sets that break the rules. Only a quarter of all televisions currently on the market would comply with the new regulations.
Emphasis added. Greener than other state, California may be, but less free than others we increasingly are. No wonder employers and individuals are fleeing the state, with one in eight of those who remain out of work.
“hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters.”
You add emphasis, but why? You think this is a noteworthy statement? An intellegent statement? Do you REALLY think that the only reason that politicians support environmental regulations is so that they can appear a certain way when speaking to reporters?
To me, this is an inane comment – how can you see it differently?
But one thing is interesting here. At least Sarah acknowledges that the climate is getting warmer. I thought the standard line from “skeptics” was that it is actually getting cooler…
“Only a quarter of all televisions currently on the market would comply with the new regulations.”
So, by 2013, there would need to be newer models of TVs? And this is a problem…why?
Tano is obviously a lib.
“there would need to be newer models of TVs? And this is a problem…why?”
Its a problem because MOST of us Americans do not think it is the governments (the hiding place of the worst and the dimmest) place to be telling US FREE PEOPLE what we should and shouldn’t do.
My background is energy, and environmental engineering and have always believed that we should strive to do SMART things to make the Earth a cleaner place. The way to do that is with market based ideas because bureaucrats and pols just f stuff up. ALWAYS
Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment?
Tano wrote:
Is she? Here is the full Palin quote:
I don’t see any admission of warming in this statement; only that weather is changing. Next time, try arguing from context of the words she wrote, not from what you’d like to interpret.
As you know, I’m not a Sarah Palin fan by any means, but her comment does have a nugget of truth to it. Those of us who, you know, actually live in CA are first hand witnesses to the damage the extreme environmental lobby has done to the state, from the prevention of building new power plants in the state, which led to our dependence on out-of-state power resources and led to the manipulation of the power commodities market by Sempra Energy and Enron and blackouts and “Flex You Power” days (yes, our poor regulatory statutes set that in motion thank you), to the present day where they can’t even build solar power plant because of environmentalist protesting against building it in the desert. And they just scrapped a geothermal plant due to prohibitive cost. Yet, these are the technologies that California is supposed to hang their hat on for future job creation?????
PS, Tano, you and /or Gillie still haven’t responded to my questions from a few posts ago:
1. Do you have any clue about the difficulties and uncertainties involved in the process of trying to model a complex dynamic system, where many of the variables and parameters are either not known, or even if they are, are so unpredictable than they can’t be modeled????
2. What is the measured radiative flux of Earths atmosphere? Is it positive or negative, and what is the amount of energy that seeps from the atmosphere into space as global warming occurs?
and prohibit California retailers from selling sets that break the rules
So, how much did the retailers of Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona bribe the regulators to have those regulations put in place?
Sonic,
Hmmm. Sarah acknowledges climate change but tries to deny it is caused by humans, and you surmise she might be talking about cooling?
Actually, its kinda odd that I may know more about Palin’s positions than you guys. You have the quote there where she references her establishment of a sub-cabinet position for climate change issues. Here is the order she issued – LINK
If you are feeling lazy about reading it, here is a key quote.
“Scientific evidence shows many areas of Alaska are experiencing a warming trend. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will continue to warm at a faster pace than any other state, and the warming will continue for decades. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans.” etc. it goes on….
TRay, thanks for explaining the libertarian idea of government’s role to someone who seem to spend his every hour at our blog, ready to tap out a criticism as soon as I post a piece and never appreciating our ideas. He seems to be a professional curmudgeon, living to attack.
Let me repeat what you said so he might actually consider our ideas:
Care to address that, Tano?
“Do you have any clue about the difficulties and uncertainties involved in the process of trying to model a complex dynamic system, where many of the variables and parameters are either not known, or even if they are, are so unpredictable than they can’t be modeled????”
Sure. Modeling of complex systems is difficult. There are always uncertainties in all scientific endeavors. Everyone understand this. I think that the operative variables are known, and can be estimated. They may be complex calculations but they are not beyond our abilites.
“What is the measured radiative flux of Earths atmosphere? Is it positive or negative, and what is the amount of energy that seeps from the atmosphere into space as global warming occurs?”
I don’t walk around with the values of such factors in my head. Energy “seeps” into space because some of it reflects off the atmosphere before striking the earth, and some of the heat that radiates from earth and hits the atmosphere is deflected into space, while some is reflected back downward. What are you driving at here?
Hmm, I’ve been watching Deadliest catch since it started. Funny how the ice has been getting worse.
But hey I'[ve heard that if you put the president’s approval numbers in the global warming model, suddenly it spikes upward too!
Dan,
I am surprised that an intellectual and academic such as yourself is so cantankerous when faced with critical discourse. You do know that it only serves to make you better. Which is not something you are going to get from the nodders in the peanut gallery.
What is there to say about the quote from TRay? The government sets all kind of standards for consumer products that help keep us safe and our country healthy – from CAFE standards, to bans on lead paint on toys, to policing the food industry etc. etc. So TV manufacturers are going to have to make greener sets – and we get the whole “we’re losing our freedoms” nonsense. Its almost a parody.
Is this what you think our founding fathers fought and died for? Your freedom to have a slightly more polluting TV?
And therein you prove your ignorant douchebaggery. However, I am happy to inform you, climate scientists HAVE NO IDEA how cloud-cover affects, influences or compensates for “global warming” so they LEAVE IT OUT of their models altogether! Water vapor accounts for virtually ALL of the so-called greenhouse gasses, and CO2 is nothing but a trace gas! Yet they ignore the former because they are incapable of understanding it and concentrate only on the former. Why? Because only the former can be regulated and therefore lead to redistribution.
You laughably pretend as though climate modeling is science as opposed to the complete fraud that it is, despite the fact that the fraudulent “models” cant even accurately predict CURRENT climate conditions given known historical data.
Tano, you are nothing but a fundamentalist religious zealot who REJECTS science and the scientific method utterly.
No, like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and the vast majority of Democrats, they have HUGE sums of their ill-gotten wealth invested in the inefficient boondoggle “green energy” companies that they are attempting to shift billions in taxpayer’s money to subsidizing.
Crooks and liars, every last liberal.
“Climate scientists HAVE NO IDEA how cloud-cover affects, influences or compensates for “global warming” so they LEAVE IT OUT of their models altogether!”
Simply not true. Clouds have been, historically, a prime source of uncertainty in models, but they have always been dealt with, and much work has been done to improve those parts of the models. LINK
“Water vapor accounts for virtually ALL of the so-called greenhouse gasses, and CO2 is nothing but a trace gas! ”
Simply not true. Water vapor is the largest, by volume, greenhouse gas, but CO2 is also a major contributor to the effect. And carbon, of course, is being ADDED to the natural cycle whenever we dig up fossilized forms of it and burn them. LINK
“Yet they ignore the former…”
Absurdly, insanely, not true.
No wonder you hold the positions you do. You mind is full of lots of garbage.
So Tano links to Realclimate and to the IPCC, both of which are involved in the bogus data.
Next Tano will be citing I’madinnerjacket for the truth of the holocaust.
Thousands of people die on American roads every year due to increased CAFE standards. Will you state that it’s worth it?
Millions of people die worldwide because of absurd bans on DDT. Will you state that it’s worth it?
Shall I go on?
Sarah Palin’s letter to the WaPo concerning Eugene Robinson’s “gotcha” attempt:
Only a total idiot would deny the reality of climate change. (Of course, it is totally OK to fiddle the Medieval Warming Period out of your scientific equations if you need to get the results you have decided upon.)
Tano, Gov. Palin took a practical approach toward continuing the good stewardship of Alaska. If the sky is falling, at least you wear a helmet. She acted on the “consensus of science” without buying the man-made part of the claims.
Now, Tano, if you leave the man-made stuff out of the climate panic, what steps do you take to lessen or stop or reverse climate change? Probably the same ones you use to change the tides and change the frequency and intensity of solar flares and the potential geomagnetic shift of the earth’s poles.
Furthermore, Tano, Gov. Palin asked her sub-cabinet to be prepared to address “carbon credits” which are all the fashionable rage among the man-made climate warmists, science by consensus hoop-de-doers and leftist elitists.
“Thousands of people die on American roads every year due to increased CAFE standards.”
Hmm. Thats rather like saying that thousands of people die on American roads each year due to the lack of lower speed-limits. If we all drove tanks, and didn’t exceed 10mph, we could really minimize traffic deaths.
“Millions of people die worldwide because of absurd bans on DDT.”
Actually, DDT is not completely banned. It is allowed for vector control – i.e. killing mosquitoes that carry malaria parasites. It is banned for general agricultural pesticide control, in many countries, not all – and this is a VERY GOOD THING. If you understand anything about suppression of disease vectors, you would realize that insects tend to evolve resistance to pesticides. The more general the use of the pesticide, the quicker the evolution of resistance. Using DDT for anything other than targetted killing of malaria vectors just hastens the day when it will no longer be effective against those disease-spreading critters.
Environmentalism is a rich man’s game. Ahnold doesn’t have to worry about keeping a roof over his head or keeping food on the table. And he doesn’t have to worry about spending his old age in destitution.
His state is insolvent so he jets off to Denmark to hobnob with the other poseurs, frauds, and rent-seeking businessmen.
And again Tano obfuscates. Speed limits are a state matter. And it is a limit. I can choose to drive slower. I can’t choose to drive a tank *when they don’t make them…*
“Only a total idiot would deny the reality of climate change.”
Well, OK then. I wonder what the percentage of total idiots there are here in the GP commenting community.
Let alone in your favorite political party, or ideological movement.
“Gov. Palin took a practical approach toward continuing the good stewardship of Alaska. …without buying the man-made part of the claims.”
I agree completely. Thats pretty much what I was trying to say.
“if you leave the man-made stuff out of the climate panic, what steps do you take to lessen or stop or reverse climate change? ”
I don’t follow the point you try to make after this.
Climate change that is not man-made has almost always happened on a relatively slow time scale (except the changes caused by catastrophic events like asteroid hits etc.). If that is what we are facing now, then there really is no problem – we would have plenty of time to adapt to changing conditions – centuries, millenia.
It is the man-made stuff that is causing the change to happen at a pace which will cause havoc with our civilized infrastructre, and that we wont be able to deal with without enormous dislocation.
“Gov. Palin asked her sub-cabinet to be prepared to address “carbon credits””
Good for her.
I dont quite get the point of your comments. I did not come here to bash Sarah. Historically, (when she actually had some responsibilities) she has acted responsibly. Lately, as she eyes having to make an appeal to the knucke-dragging GOP base, she seems to be trying to muddy the waters. I am not convinced that she won’t be a responsible environmentalist if she ever achieves power. She might be the best possible spokesperson actually, since she might bring the GOP and the rightwing kicking and screaming into the sunlight of reality.
“I can’t choose to drive a tank *when they don’t make them…*
OK , a hummer.
I don’t think that our founding fathers fought and died for our freedom to have a TV that consumes energy at a greater rate than another. I KNOW they did. Just read their words. Any of them. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison any of these great men whose vision and love of freedom was so profound that they foresaw the greatness that COULD BE in America, if only we managed to our vigilance against soft tyranny that government is so apt so apply.
To quote James Madison
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”
So yes, Tano, with every fiber of my being I know that in service to their country, these great men wanted you, me and everyone else living under the blanket of freedom provided by this great nation to have any damned television we want.
Besides this is quite possibly the dumbest of dumb rules that Socialistfornia has ever come up with. Just like all the companies that moved to low tax states, the TV buyers will just get them elsewhere, increasing CAs tax shortfall.
Just to let you know I won’t be back to respond. I didn’t realize that you were a professional troll. I have an actual job and pay actual taxes so I need to get back to it, there are millions of welfare recipients counting on me.
Aw TRay, dont go yet. I was just wondering how general your complaint is. Do you also demand, with every fiber of your being, the right to buy any toy for your child (if you have one)_ even those covered with lead paint? Or any food that you may want, even the ground beef with maggots and feces in it? Or is it OK with James Madison if we try to keep that kind of stuff out of the market? Or are you, the free and independent guy that you are, going to take responsibility to do all the toxin testing in your basement?
Where do you draw the lines?
TRay,
You are arguing with a progressive. They dont believe in freedom. They value safety over freedom. They want government to be their mommy and their daddy, telling them what they can and cant have. Telling them what is good for them and what is bad for them. They are INCOMPETENT and INCAPABLE of acting like grown ups and being responsible for their own choices. They are exactly the people Ben Franklin warned us about when he said
Funny, you claim that its not true that scientists dont have any idea how cloud cover affects the climate, then go on to admit they have no idea how cloud cover affects the climate.
But I do concede your point that they have tried to deal with it. But they have failed utterly. The fact remains that the frauds posing as models cannot accurately predict even PRESENT conditions which means they are a complete failure by any scientific measure.
Actually, every single word is true.
You might want to look up the definition of “trace gas”.
And “man-made” carbon dioxide makes up something like a tiny, paltry 0.03% (or less) of THAT.
Meanwhile water vapor accounts for 85% of all so-called greenhouse gases.
All of which ignores the glaring fact that throughout history, global warming PRECEDES carbon increases, it doesn’t follow them.
Your gods are frauds Tano. They have predicted NOTHING accurately. Your vaunted models cannot even predict the current climate conditions! Thats like a weatherman standing outside and being unable to tell you what the weather is.
But I should know better than to argue with a religious zealot.
Tano, you wrote:
Where on Earth do you read into my comment that I surmise that she might be talking about cooling??????? Again – context.
Since I am not a Palin acolyte, as you surely must know, i don’t follow her previous political statements (which can change on a dime, it’s what politicians do). I was operating on the info presented by Dan in this post. Anyway, thanks for the link.
I did not come here to bash Sarah.
Blabbering liar. In your very first comment, you bash her.
To me, this is an inane comment – how can you see it differently?
Then the pathetic lying scum tried to misquote her.
But one thing is interesting here. At least Sarah acknowledges that the climate is getting warmer.
When the duplicitous and pathetic Obama paid propagandist lost that, he now tries to pretend it didn’t happen.
As always, Tano runs and hides from his lies when he is confronted with evidence.
Do you also demand, with every fiber of your being, the right to buy any toy for your child (if you have one)_ even those covered with lead paint?
Yes.
The problem here, Tano, is that you are rationalizing your attempt to take control of peoples’ lives by insisting that they are too stupid to make their own decisions.
That is typical for the Obama Party. Obama Party members like yourself hate freedom of choice. You prefer that the government control every action because you believe everyone else is stupid. You yourself have no intention of following the laws, as we see from the tax avoidance of Timothy Geithner, Charles Rangel, Barack Obama, and virtually the entire Barack Obama Cabinet.
To you, pathetic Tano, freedom is something you have and deny to others. Why is that? Why do you hate free people so much?
Californians won’t stop fucking that chicken.
MTBE? Sure, it’s expensive and causes cancer, but it’s good for the environment. Well, unless it seeps into the groundwater. That’s bad.
Housing development in Pittsburg? Stopped dead for months while some Berkeleyite nit-wit determined the salamanders they found were quite common and did not exist solely on that one hillside.
Benicia Bridge? CalTrans burned hundreds of millions waiting on a study that determined fish trapped in boxes near a pile driver die. Fish not trapped in boxes near a pile driver will swim away.
The EPA, Sierra Club, and Green Peace are fat-assed bureaucrats and greedy lawyers. And their idiot cousins all work in Sacramento. The fish in the Bay are smarter than the average public servant in California.
NDT,
Point in his favour, apparently Tano is too stupid to make his own decisions, since he repeats the party line on everything.
Tano is right about the climate models NOT ignoring the effects of cloud forcings and climate predictions. The problem is that the variables used to represent cloud effects, with can in theory be both positive AND negative, they cannot be tested for accuracy in any fashion. The variables used are an educated guess. And since radiative flux has not yet been measured accurately, that is also a variable that is assumed in the models. This does not mean the models are wrong, but with two huge forcings simply cannot have the certainty proposed by their proponents Mann, Jones, Schmidt and others. That is the reason I asked those two questions.
Tano is also right about the current use of DDT.
Now, that said, lets get something clear. Many, if not most, climate skeptics DO NOT deny that the globe has been warming. Many do not deny that CO2 has played a role in the most recent warming seen in the last thirty years or so. What we resent and protest against is the false certainty and assertion of consensus by the IPCC, a political body Yes, they use science, but, as some of the e-mails show, not honestly or openly, as they take great pains to hide inconvenient yet valid scientific information that interferes with the predetermined conclusions of the IPCC, that humans are causing global warming.
Since you brought it up, lets use DDT as an example of the way that politics interferes with science. Yes, the use of DDT can be very harmful to the environment. But even as that issue was addressed, it was also shown scientifically that DDT could be used effectively in much smaller doses without doing much damage. Yet, despite that scientific knowledge, the WHO chose to listen to the scientists who showed that DDT must be completely banned. As that view happened to be the same of those administering WHO, the politicians within the institution declared a “scientific consensus” on the matter, and implemented a worldwide ban against the use of the substance. After years and years of stonewalling, the WHO, in 2006, lifted the total ban on the pesticide, a ban based on, again, a political version of “scientific consensus”. In the meantime, the ban, which lasted 25ish years, prevented the eradication of malaria carrying mosquitoes and could have saved as many as 50 million lives. And, so far, in the three years of successful low dosage DDT use, malaria deaths have declined tremendously with no evidence of the same environmental damage seen in the fifties and sixties.
Yet that is still not enough to satisfy the powers that be at WHO. They are once again on a crusade to ban DDT use. They want to use the antimalaria chloroquine pills in place of DDT. Problem is, it’s hard to administer reliably, it’s much more expensive than DDT use, and mosquitos develop an immunity to the drug after a period of time.
#18 Tano:
Show me one person here or in the Republican Party or who calls himself conservative who denies the fact of climate change.
As it currently stands, there is dispute as to whether the direction of the constant process of climate change is toward warmer or cooler. There is dispute about whether the activities of man has had an effect on climate change.
Man-made global warming crisis advocates have framed the debate much differently than a simple examination of which direction climate change is trending.
Tano says that there is climate change emergency caused by man.
Palin is not on board with that opinion.
Sorry, Tano, the debate has always been over the role of man in climate change. As you wrote and most of us “deniers” believe:
The ball is in your court. Here are the two issues I challenge you to prove:
(1) The “deniers” are denying the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and;
(2) The Hockey Stick graphs are indisputable and man’s actions have caused an immediate emergency in accelerated climate change.
I will not hold my breath. You always disappear when you reach this point in any debate.
As a little help to Tano, I call on all Gay Patriots who deny that there is any such thing as climate change to step forward and identify themselves.
I deny there is any change in what is the norm for climate, which is constant change. More precisely, the preponderance of evidence suggests that man has had no impact on the climate whatsoever, and I remain a huge skeptic until that preponderance suggests otherwise, which, contrary to all the crooks and communists attempts to mislead to the contrary, it does not.
Sonic,
While I conceded that I was wrong about computer models not trying to account for cloud cover, I have to disagree that their attempts to do so cannot be measured. They are measured in the absolute failure of those models to accurately predict present climate conditions given known historical data and in the failure of ALL their climate predictions to date.
The more important point is that, as you said, they are only guessing when they try to model cloud cover. They really have only the faintest understanding of how cloud cover affects climate and really no idea at all whether it compensates for any increase in “greenhouse” gases. To call them educated guesses is to give their guesses more credence than they deserve. They haven’t a fricken clue, which is why none of their models can actually accurately predict squat.
and also you said this:
That would be most unfortunate if that were the case since the globe has been cooling for the last decade. I dont think anyone denies that the globe WAS on a warming trend that seems to have ended in 1998, but I suspect that it what you meant. I dont think many scientists worth a lick would claim that the earth is still warming. The temperature record itself refutes that. Some may claim that our current cooling is actually warmer than it would be if not for global warming, but, again, that would be based on belief in a theory with scant real-world evidence that stands up to scrutiny, not based on fact — and any scientist who would try to portray it as established fact or “consensus” rather than conjecture would be misleading us.
It’s run by libs, plain and simple. We saw the colossal failure of liberalism in New Orleans and we see it in CA, MI, NY, NJ etc. and folks just keep on voting for them. I suppose folks fall for their lies and fear tactics.
Hard to say. It depends on whether or not you, ghillie, Tim etc. are the same person or not.
AE, it all depends on the start date you use. yes there has been no warming detected in the eight or eleven year trend, I was thinking of the 160 year trend when I said that.
“Many, if not most, climate skeptics DO NOT deny that the globe has been warming. Many do not deny that CO2 has played a role in the most recent warming”
Well, without denying the probable existence of a fair number of honest and sincere skeptics, I would say most skeptics simply have no idea what they are talking about, and just parrot whatever the latest thing they hear on talk radio or read in some blog.
That might be that there is no warming at all, in fact a cooling. That might be that there has been no change whatsoever for a significant period of time. That might be that there is a warming, but it is inconsequential. Or that there is a consequential warming but it is all due to natural causes. Or that there is anthropogenic change but we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it, or that we can do some undefined things that are different than limiting emissions.
There are lots of different points of view, and often you will find the same person shifting back and forth to pick up the skeptic theme at different points, based on the latest talking points.
Sonic,
Your DDT story is riddled with falsehoods.
“, the WHO chose to listen to the scientists who showed that DDT must be completely banned….and implemented a worldwide ban against the use of the substance.”
That is ridiculous. DDT has never been “banned” worldwide. It was banned in many developed countries (most of which do not have any malaria problems), and the WHO stopped using it in their own programs for 20 years or so. But it continued to be used by national programs througout the developing world, and it was availble for use in the private marketplace as a pesticide in many places. The WHO eventually changed their mind and started using it again, because that is the conclusion they reached from assessing the science.
“In the meantime, the ban, which lasted 25ish years, prevented the eradication of malaria carrying mosquitoes and could have saved as many as 50 million lives.”
Hogwash. Other pesticides were used. And the current use of DDT is far from ubiquitous because of the resistance problem I mentioned earlier. There have been known mosquito strains resistant to DDT since the mid-fifties – so even now its current use must be carefully targeted. If I remember correctly, I thin most of the strains in India, which has always used a lot of DDT, are resistant now.
In fact, it is probable that the cut back in use for 20 years has probably helped DDT to be as effective as it is today, since the mosquitoes were no longer selected for resistance during that time.
“They are once again on a crusade to ban DDT use.”
Well yes. Pesticides are toxins. Their widespread application in the environment is harmful and self-defeating. Controlling and targetting their use is important – though spraying DDT indoors only increases the risk to humans who live in the enclosed space. If the same result can be achieved in a less harmful way, then of course that should be pursued.
cont.
Actually, a lot of it comes from newspapers and what not. For example, Rush’s Global Warming Stack contains articles from all over the news media.
Here’s another story of liberalism run amok. In essence, liberals are screwing children (poor kids hardest hit) out of toys:
Chemical Crusaders Target Christmas
A new law is taking harmless toys off store shelves, but a Wednesday vote has given retailers a slight reprieve .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574586273769666760.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Actually, I was trying to remember this story the other day. WSJ has had a few pieces on this ban over the last year or so.
More junk science and fear tactics of the liberal left all to exert control over the (hopefully) ignorant and gullible proles.
“Well, without denying the probable existence of a fair number of honest and sincere skeptics, I would say most skeptics simply have no idea what they are talking about, and just parrot whatever the latest thing they hear on talk radio or read in some blog.”
Coming from the guy who when confronted with fraudulent behaviour by the global warming church replies “Look, it’s all true! The global warming church says their data is fine!”
Forgive me for using Wikipedia as an indirect source but here is the ban on DDT discussed.
To sum up, it may not be ‘banned’ but if you can’t buy it, and no one will sell it, it is a difference without distinction.
Wonder how long it will be before the green police act like the Danish police?
Tano:
Here are the two issues I challenge you to prove:
(1) The “deniers” are denying the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and;
(2) The Hockey Stick graphs are indisputable and man’s actions have caused an immediate emergency in accelerated climate change.
” I challenge you to prove:”
“(1) The “deniers” are denying the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and;”
What is your point here? Who ever said this? I laid out, in general, the various positions that are taken by skeptics and deniers in comment 33. Why are you asking to prove something that no one has ever claimed?
“(2) The Hockey Stick graphs are indisputable and man’s actions have caused an immediate emergency in accelerated climate change.”
You want me to “prove” that something is “indisputable”? Anyone can dispute anything they want to. The moment they do so, the thing is shown to be disputable.
The blade of the hockey stick shows indisputable (!!!) evidence of warming – these values are taken from actual temperature readings and from models which accurately predict real temperatures. The shaft of the stick is a compendium of various proxy data sets – all for the Northern Hemisphere. There is, of course, always an uncertainty factor with proxy data. Smaller-scale, localized records indicate that some areas had higher highs (in Medieval times) than the larger scale reconstructions – and that leads to confusion on the part of some people.
But the rate of change in the 20th century, correlating with the large influx of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere because of human activity, is unprecedented, and at odds with any known natural cause.
There are few things in science, and none in politics, that are “indisputable”. But the overwhelming majority of those who have spent their lives studying these phenomena agree that the only plausible explanation of the data is the greenhouse effect of the extra carbon dioxide that has been pumped into the atmosphere. This large majority has formed a consensus on that point. Small minorities dispute this conclusion, so obviously it is not indisputable.
Why are we still talking about the “hockey stick” when the National Academy of Sciences debunked it and the IPCC threw it out? Is it because Algore, the Jim Jones of Global Warmism still clings to it?
Indeed, anyone looking at the Darwin ‘normalization’ would know something was wrong.
But that requires self reflection, something that requires independence.
TGC, because some people cannot deal with REALITY…