Rick Santorum's dirty words

November 7, 2006 was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for a lot of Republicans. It's the day the Democrats won the majority in the US Senate and House. Über-conservative Republican Senator Rick Santorum was one of the Republicans who lost his seat that day; it was the “largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since… 1980.” Ouch .

Determined not to be relegated to the “where are they now?” column, Santorum has been keeping his conservative fan club happy with his semi-regular opinion pieces in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He pontificates on his favorite subjects, like “family values ” and “evildoers “.

However, today Santorum digresses, and puts on his “clean coal” salesman hat. 

Santorum's column is a train wreck, full of inept comparisons and non sequiturs. Writing and composition instructors, as well as logic and rhetoric teachers, beware. Rick Santorum will make your blood pressure go up.

'Coal' is not a dirty word if we are realistic about saving the Earth

[A]ccording to a recent ABC News poll, only 33 percent of Americans believe man-made global warming is the world's most serious environment crisis.

How is a poll from a year ago “recent”? Not only that, but Santorum apparently missed the part of the poll that said 56% of the people polled thought temperatures around the world have risen. The poll result negates what he says next:

This finding comes after years of global-warming propaganda, the “conclusive” evidence in news reports, Al Gore's Nobel Prize, claims of melting ice caps endangering polar bears, and the hysterical drum beat from UN scientists and liberal politicians around the world.

But then he contradicts himself and says “the hype” is working, and that he's kinda buying into it. Aw shucks:

The media hype has had an impact - environmentalism is in. Most of us skeptics are perfectly fine with the going-green movement's practical side. I recycle. I constantly turn lights off around my house (although I think that is just a dad thing). I bought a fuel-efficient car, and I am more conscious of taking care of God's creation.

He continues with how the hype really isn't working. Oh, and yawn, here comes the predictable Inhofian Science:

I think most Americans don't believe Al Gore and the hysterics (good rock band name) have made the case.

Could it be that Americans know that over time the Earth goes through natural cooling and heating cycles?

Could it be that they recognize that most of the doomsday scenarios are not scientifically supported and that even the “consensus” projections are just that - projections based upon highly interactive questionable assumptions over long periods of time?

FAIL (as the kids on the internet say ). Wrong. Someone's been looking at cooked graphs .

Finally, after sixteen paragraphs of tired rhetoric, he gets to his point:

Why not use technology to lower carbon emissions? And we can by building more nuclear power plants and developing and deploying clean-coal technology, which has already reduced emissions by 70 percent since 1970.

There is that dirty word: coal.

Those lumps of carbon turn the lights on in 50 percent of American homes.

In an age when energy independence is not only important for our economy, but also vital to our national security, we can't afford not to use this plentiful domestic resource.

Yes, indeed. Rick has joined the fantasy world of the “clean coal” promoters. He doesn't make his point very well, because he suddenly muddles his point by bashing Barack Obama:

If [the Democratic candidates] would stop reflexively bowing to the anti-fossil-fuels crowd, we could boost investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that captures and stores carbon dioxide from coal-powered electrical plants.

CCS separates and captures carbon dioxide at the power plant before it is emitted. It is then liquefied, transported by pipeline and injected deep underground into geological formations for permanent storage.

Contrast this down-to-earth, commonsense approach with Barack Obama's other-worldly proposal. He's calling for a mandatory 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

Let's recap what Rick's trying to say:

  1. Global warming is not real.
  2. The media makes people think it is, or maybe not (?), but at least Rick recycles.
  3. Coal is clean. CCS works. Seriously, for reals!
  4. Barack Obama is lame and unrealistic, because he doesn't believe in “clean coal” as an energy source.

FAIL, Rick. Here's reality:

Global warming is real. A 2008 poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe humans cause global warming, although this percentage is down from a previous poll.

Coal is not “clean”. And Barack Obama actually promotes “clean coal”, so Rick's just plain lying.

I'd like to suggest some reading material for Rick, although I think he's beyond hope.

But we have faith in the the reality-based community (both online and off).

We're counting on you to see through the “clean coal” spin . It's your future - and the Earth's - that's at stake.


Way to go DeSmogBlog. it is important that we have a source of regular information about the massive global warming denial PR machine and its various proponents. Daily newspapers used to do this. No longer. So it is up to DeSmogBlog and others to help educate citizens.

My favorite comment of the week award - no prize other than a wholehearted thank-you!

Talk about strawmen. I can’t think of any reason why there would be an article on a Canadian site about Santorum. Can you?

“Republicans: All lies, all the time.” - exusian

Where the hell did that come from? You wouldn’t be a Liberal would you exusian (or even worse, a NDPutzer)?

We’re even worse in Canada. The Libs ratified Kyoto and our C02 emissions have been rising every year since. So let’s leave the Republicans out of this.

Canada ratified the Kyoto treaty on December 17, 2002, and it came into force in February 2005.

From the “National Inventory Report 1990-2006: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada” published in April 2008 by Environment Canada, Executive Summary, Section ES.2, p 3:

“In 2006, Canadians contributed about 721 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2 eq) of GHGs to the atmosphere (Figure S-1), a 1.9 percent reduction from 2005. This followed a year of relatively very low growth in emissions and another year of decline, such that the overall change from 2003 is a reduction of 2.8%. Canada’s economic GHG intensity – the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of economic activity – was 5% lower in 2006 than in 2005.”

Table S-1, p 5, shows the following total GHGs (Mt) per year:

1990 - 592
1995 - 642
2000 - 718
2003 - 741
2004 - 743
2005 - 734
2006 - 721

The New Canadian Government, unsurprisingly, has failed to publicly acknowledge the downward trend which it inherited and has since squandered.

1990 - 592

2006 - 721

This must be some new definition of “downward trend”?

Paul S said “The Libs ratified Kyoto and our C02 emissions have been rising every year since.” Kyoto was ratified in 2005. The downward trend from 2004.

Maybe you can read. Maybe you’re just trying to move the goal posts in the typical denier fashion.

OK, to make you happy Hugh I will say Canada’s CO2 emissions have been rising decade over decade which is more accurate in ignoring interannual variability. Happy?

= The New Canadian Government, unsurprisingly, has failed to publicly acknowledge the downward trend which it inherited and has since squandered. =

“Inherited”? Give us a break.

Any downward trend has been the result of industry efforts and almost no credit can go to any government, Liberal or Conservative.

To say:
“Global warming is real. A 2008 poll shows that nearly half of Americans believe humans cause global warming, although this percentage is down from a previous poll.”

So if the majority of uninformed americans believe it, it is REAL?

Thats just plain silly.

And coincidentally … wrong.

GW is natural and AGW is a political agenda.

Gary, did you see the section where Santorum says we need clean coal and carbon storage (that is, we can reduce CO2 emissions), but then he says requiring strong emissions reductions by 2050 is bad? Care to comment on bad arguments in general or just ones that allow you to repeat your talking points? Are you just being propagandistic?

I really can’t argue with those statements.
We could indeed use clean coal.
Probably won’t ever get it but it would be nice.
Carbon capture technology could be useful someday as well.
And strong emission reductions by 2050 will only result in serious harm to the economy with no measurable effect on the climate. So I guess AS Stated… I agree with all the comments.

As usual there is a lot more to the issue than that but….

BTW: I read the thread at Deltoid. I did not see a specific comment relating to our discussion however. Did I miss it?

Also, I am off to India next week for a three week business trip, so I will be somewhat off line until July.
Have a good June….

Thanks for the nice wishes Gary. Enjoy your trip.
But first, you disagree with Santorum that we need investment in clean coal CCS and that the technology will work, right? But if you agreed with that, then wouldn’t you think his attack on Obama was poorly supported by his argument?
PS. The deltoid thread had two fairly good responses to the question I posed which was supposed to be directly related to our discussion of what it would take to change your (or my) mind. One respondent agreed with IPCC projections for the next century, the other disagreed, but both basically made appeals to authority rather than focussing on actual or potential findings. … to be continued?

I am not convinced that clean coal is economically feasable. But….
While living in Calgary a while ago I had a client that was working on a coal liquifcation process that would (if sucessful) allow coal to burn nearly as cleanly as natural gas.
I have not heard lately how it is going, but it may be worth investing a few dollars in.
We are not likely to simply reduce our need for power any time soon like some environmentalists would like so any way to turn an abundant resource into a clean energy source would be good.

I have reserved a PC and internet connection while in India and intend to check in as often as I can, but I will be very busy so…..

I will attemt to reread that thread.
I do recall some comments about being convinced by the opinions of scientists they trust.
I feel the same. My group of scientists that I trust is just a bit different than theirs.

When it comes right down to it, trust in people we consider competent and honest is really all we have since most of us are not directly involved in the research. Interesting.

Don’t re-read the whole thread unless you want to. Just search “Steve L” – I think it comes up every time someone replied.
One approach to responding to your answer about relying only on scientists you think you can trust is to point out that you seem to be a conspiracy theorist regarding AGW. Another would be to ask, again, what would change your mind.
But I think there is a fundamental problem here. I think it’s problematic too when the same sentiments are expressed by people who think AGW is real. The reason is that it becomes circular if people trust scientists based on whether or not they like what the scientists say – then they are choosing what to believe based on how they feel, not based on evidence. Did you know Lubos Motl and determine whether or not you trusted him prior to finding out his views on AGW? I suspect you chose to trust him because you liked his angle on the topic. Do you see the problem? I doubt Lubos would change his mind, but if he did, you might no longer trust him. Then you’d just point to someone else who says something that doesn’t disrupt your current understanding of things. This is not any way to resolve a dispute.
I know not everyone can evaluate complex scientific information. As someone trained and working as a scientist, though, I expect to be swayed by evidence more than by personalities and political views. I would hope that everyone else arguing about the evidence felt the same way.

I have heard of him before but don’t really know a lot about him. Not sure really what side he is on, I just thought his paper applied to the issue in discussion.

It is a problem. And I don’t see an easy solution.
Lay people don’t have the time, background or training to evaluate actual scientific data.

Many scientists only know about their small area of expertise and have no time to review all the data and look at the big picture.

I recall a prominent scientist making an interesting statement earlier this spring.
He had “assumed” that the evidence was clear because the prevailing news coverage said it was. But he admitted that he had not really reviewed any of it and was thinking that with recent information, he had better take aanother long hard look. Just one example.

Conspiricy? Yes. Guilty as charged.

One major factor for me has always been the history of the movement and motivations of the leaders. There is no doubt that AGW is exactly what the socialist movement has been looking for. It is also clear that the issue splits down political lines. The IPCC is political body with a clear agenda and dubious mithedology and their much reported concensus now pails before the truely overwhelming anti concensus that has recently emerged.

One must ask: Do you really believe that all conservatives are uncaring poluting idiots and that all liberals are intellegent progressive caring environmentalists?

Then there is the cases of Michael Mann, James Hansen, Al Gore and so many others.
These are the holy men of the movement.
Their work has been so clearly discredited now it has to cause question for the whole issue.

There is so much covering so many areas, it is difficult to stay focused on CO2.

Back to CO2 and conspiricy.
With all the forcing factors available (sun, PDO-AMO, soot, Orbit cycles, etc, etc etc)
One must wonder why CO2 is always held up as the only real cause.
I believe it is because CO2 is the only factor that the left can use to guilt trip us into submission.
The actual scientific case is pretty weak when the other factors are added.

Sorry for rambling. too many topics to cover.

AGW is the best tool for affecting socialist change that has ever presented itself.
That fact is not lost on the political left.

Nearly all lefties are AGW fans. And that is not because lefties are inhearently better educated, they are simply more opportunistic.

Are they also leftist, socialist conspirators? The Royal Society? NOAA? NASA? The US Academy of Sciences? What about Angela Terkel, the Chancellor of Germany and Chair of the right-wing Christian Democratic Party - she is one of the most vocal world leaders on immediate cuts to greenhouse gases worldwide. Is Madame Merkel also part of this soclalist, left-wing agenda?

You don’t have to be a socialist to see the profit in going along with their aganda if your paycheck is dependant on it.
There are severa other reasons to “Go along”.
Political correctness, Funding Grants, Green Idiology, Band wagons, peer presure, feeble attempts to salvage reputation after years of promoting a failing agenda.

Socialism is but one cancer involved in the agenda.

“Is Madame Terkel [sic] also part of this soclalist, left-wing agenda?”

First of all, her name is Angela Merkel, and the correct style of address is Frau Bundeskanzlerin, not “Madame”. This may come as a shock to you, but she’s not the Chancellor of France. But then, how would you know any of that? She’s only the head of state of one of the most powerful countries in the world, and certainly in Europe.

While Merkel may not be “part of the socialist, left-wing agenda”, she is, first and foremost, a politician. That’s what they do.

Wow, apparently you’re perfect Rob. Thanks for the correction, actually have a friend with the last name terkel…. hence the mistake. Pardon me.

Read This if you don’t think there is a socialist agenda at work.

If this does not convince you, you are in a rose colored dream world.


Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

Warren Buffett’s newspaper is a Right-Wing mouthpiece. Many US media sources have the purpose of brainwashing Americans to make rich people even richer. This is one of them. If it wasn’t for Bloomberg TV and the Christian Science Monitor I’d categorically dismiss all US media as Stalinist (whose primarily philosophy was also to make rich people richer).

What is wrong with the carbon card idea? Britain has been hitting all the right notes lately: the environment, withdrawing from Iraq, a rapid response Marines corp to assist internationally in disaster zones. I assume it is a financial penalty for going over. It seems like a good plan. Gary, are you worried about privacy concerns. Worried about a slippery slope of Bog Brother?
Probably you don’t believe the Greenhouse Effect is real, and think this is a waste of money.?

I am worried about a complete loss of freedom in the name of “saving the Planet” from a benigne plant food.

If I thought for a moment that CO2 was actually a problem I would be in favour of measures to cut it back.
I would never be in favour of that kind of rationing however.
They would have to shoot me before I would submit to such socialistic removal of freedom.

Brainless NDP supporters would love it.

I am just curious to know what it is about taking care of the environment and ensuring a general level of well-being for people around the world who are currently living in abject poverty is such a bad idea? How does that restrict your freedom? I really would like to know what you are afraid of losing – specifically. Please enlighten me.

Fern Mackenzie

Read the article.

Resistance is futile.
You will be assimillated.

When you need an opinion, the colictive will provide an approved one for you.

Seem Familiar?

It’s an opinion piece that borders on a rant, and I don’t happen to share his opinion on the absolute superiority of an unfettered free-market economy. But if you are determined to find commies under your bed and in the closet, that’s your own business.

Fern Mackenzie

You said:
“that’s your own business”

Exactly correct Fern, thank you for stating it.
I appreciate that your opinion differs from mine. That’s your own business. And you are intitled to it.
And I respect that.
I just don’t agree with your view of it.

Addressing AGW is the best tool for ensuring the continued survival of humanity.
S.Harper and Conservative’s present actions are putting Canada on a course of class warfare, with results potentially mirroriing Iraq post-2003.

I honestly think the most morally correct course of action now (post carbon tax is for environmental extremists to begin non-lethal terrorist attacks on oil infrastructures. The non-lethal part is important as it potentially enables an exit strategy from the race to the bottom. Instead of looking at how to fast-track likely to be approved Health Canada medicines, the same way S.Harper has suggested fast-tracking immigrants whose occupations are in demand, I’m now looking at the police response times to Canadian oil and natural gas pipelines and homemade explosives. This is funny, because one year ago I was chastizing Green Peace for actions like nailing timber, and an Indian Band in Quebec for youtubing ways to derail trains.
All Alberta, Interior BC (ooo I feel really sorry for lumber ghost towns who vote for a government that makes the Mountain Pine Beetle more powerful), Saskatchewan and non inner-city Wpg Manitoba, have to do, is pay a tax on oil equivalent to the cost of leading gasoline. Now, it appears the progressive elements of society are those that regress Canadian society to a pre-WWI standard-of-living.

What is the ethical course of action here? I’m not suggesting blackmail, but what do you do when your own federal government is evil? You don’t condone lethal actions, because that invites retaliation against one’s own progressive base (a gang war or Iraq post-2003). But there aren’t very many non-lethal targets if you use a wide definition of lethality. If I could suggest a “derivative bomb” that would clog up coal and oil markets for a while, to hackers or progressive traders, it would primarily hurt poor families struggling to pay for heating oil. This is a very demoralizing situation to me.
Canadians who value human life and long-term human survival are in the situtation of Germany a decade before WWII. Is there any actions you can take to stop what you know is coming? Violence just destroys what you are trying to preserve. In WWII, Canada kept freight shipping open long enough for Hitler to turn East (many of the same arguments used to deny AGW can be used to deny the Holocaust), and Americans eventually joined the war in Europe and bombed German oil infrastructures.
Just like inter World Wars, the world seems too distracted to rescue a belligerent Nazi North America.
I wouldn’t seriously suggest bombing oil pipelines without ensuring first responders wouldn’t die and ensuring hospitals have reliable standby power, etc.
I honestly don’t know how to fight GWB, S.Harper, and big retarded oil, while maintaining progress.

The Conservatives of Canada have basically said, we are fucking up the future of the planet, and about my only response is: aw fuck.
I wouldn’t want people to bomb oil pipelines and spend the rest of their lives in prison. That is exactly what AGW deniers like S.Harper want. Canada is now no longer a post-modern nation and probably never will be again. Too much America and not enough Europe in our culture. I don’t know what to do here. There is no point studying any other field than mitigating Bush and Harper-unleashed Global Warming. And that in itself seems pretty stupid when mitigating warming is about 1000X as expensive as not doing it in the first place.
S.Harper has an economics degree? Whatever university economics school graduated him should be shut down; he doesn’t understand the first thing about economics.

So…if infrastructure attacks harm low income people (I’ve been a sick kid in a Winnipeg winter with disconnected Hydro), and violence against people invities a race to the bottom, what else is there to do? In high school, I reasoned rather than persuing a family or career, I’d do what I thought was the right thing, thinking the solutions I’d uncover would be novel. In fact, most societal solutions were already out there, but greed and willful ignorance prevents powerful people from implementing them. I never expected my own PM to be among those greedy and willfully ignorant people. I never expected the most powerful person on Earth to be elected twice on a platform of greed and willful ignorance.

Before you hurt someone or yourself.
And get educated about AGW.

Its a political Idiology! Not science.

Psychological counselling is about $150/hr. I don’t think I need it but am curious enough about my own psyche to subject myself to it, were someone else to foot the bill.
I’m not happy to polarize people or polarize Canada. But oil companies are the most profitable on Earth right now and they are still stifling science, let alone paranoid about paying a carbon tax that covers a small portion of the social costs of global warming.

I’m not being extremist, I’m being moderate. Put yourself in my shoes. Assume you know Global Warming will kill millions and potentially billions (even AGW proponents don’t yet realize how sensitive harvests are to climate change and weather extremes) unless the world curbs emissions in the next decade or so (the specific nearest positive feedback is not yet known). Assume you don’t wish to unleash violence or harm low income consumers, what would you do? Assume you are in Germany during the Great Depression and you see the leaders building armies, and that this creates a short-term economic gain at the expense of long-term quality-of-living. What would you do?
I assure you, If I knew a specific positive warming feedback was about to be tripped, and that my actions could prevent the world from tripping the feedback, I might take actions that could be interpreted as extremist if I saw it as the only course. But we aren’t there yet. This is 1930 Germany, not 1938. A recent German computer sim even postulated we have more than 8 or 9 years before opening a Pandora’s Box; suggests a long-term ocean circulation pattern that curbs some warming until around 2020 (after which things get much worse than previously believed).

What specifically should I get educated about? I’m 100% sure I can disprove any claims you are making AGW isn’t science. Deniers only use the same 5 or 6 arguments and I know all of them. Bjorn Longbard’s are the most ingenious and the only honest critisms, but he is flawed in thinking the only two capital utilities on Earth are mitigating Global Warming and immunizing the 3rd world (we don’t have to pay for wind turbines out of the WHO’s immunization budget). He also doesn’t realize AGW is the biggest single threat to freshwater supplies (he falsely states we should worry about freshwater security instead of global warming, when the two are intimately connected).

I’ll start: atmospheric molecules like CO2, H2O, methane and CFCs, act as one way mirrors that let in more incoming energy (sunlight), than they allow to exit Earth via heat. Now you say something stupid that is Neoconservative, employs circular reasoning, and kicks the poorest people on Earth in the teeth.

“I’m 100% sure I can disprove any claims you are making AGW isn’t science. Deniers only use the same 5 or 6 arguments and I know all of them.”

Not even James Hansen would make such a bold statement of ourtight hubris.

And then to follow it up with such a dumb statement like “atmospheric molecules like CO2, H2O, methane and CFCs, act as one way mirrors that let in more incoming energy (sunlight),…”

Like I said. Educate yourself.
the more you learn about AGW the less you will worry.

And do it quickly before you come apart.

Wow. Such absolutism. and so wrong.


you got a long road ahead….


Actually you cna find it as easily as I can. There is more and more available every day.

Just read some of it and stop hiding behind the old information in the IPCC reports.

I’m not a fan of any of our recent governments, Paul, but perhaps you could provide some data or a link regarding your attribution of downward trends toward industry only.

My point is, government inaction can not take credit for any CO2 reductions. Industry and individuals are to blame, so to speak, for increases in CO2, likewise, we and industry can take credit for reductions too.

“almost no credit can go to any government, Liberal or Conservative” … I would agree with that. The edge, however, goes to the Liberals for their training wheels, since the Conservatives scrapped them as soon as they got seated, and have since been only very gradually reinventing those wheels.

Yes. For starters, Kyoto is time-sensitive. An average of emissions from 2008 to 2012. So you expect your energy efficiency actions and other forms of addressing emissions to peak around 2009 for maximum effect. Ideally you’d start turning over inefficient capital stocks in the 90’s, but the bulk of Kyoto efforts wouldn’t occur until just before the Treay takes into force. That is, 2005-2007 is much more important than 1999-2001. The Liberals in 2001 may have only done as much as the 2008 Conservative government (in 2005 Harper was still denying the science, equal with 19th century Canadian governments), but the onus is on them to do more. And Martin’s Project Green ($12 billion, for starters) would have much better than what Harper is offering now, and much much better than what Harper offered during when P.Martin’s plan (capable of being upgraded) would’ve came into force starting in 2006.
If meeting Kyoto requires 100 units of effort, the ideal investments might be 1 in each year from 1996-2000, 2 in 2001 and 2002, 3 in each of 2003-2004, 4 in 2005, 5 in 2006, 7 in 2007, 11 in 2008, 16 in 2009, and 14 in each of 2010 to 2012. What the Liberals gave us is maybe 1 in 1996-1999, 2 (Chretien announces support for Kyoto) from 2000-2005, a projected 4 (Project Green comes into force)in 2006-2007, 5 in 2008-2009, 6 in 2010-2011, and 7 in 2011-2012. 58 out of 100 assuming no plan upgrade. What the Conservatives/CA gave us since 2000 was a projected -2 (denying the science and funding anti-scientific lobby groups) from 2000 to 2004, a -4 (cutting 17 AGW scientific programmes was S.Harper’s very first act of government, and he didn’t put any talent in the Minister’s seat) in 2005, maybe a 2 in 2006 (I don’t know when his infrastructure fund came into force, and he), a -1 (obstructing Bali meeting) in 2007…
Dion’s plan is better than Martin’s was projected to be and M.Ignatieff is a very strong advisor in this portfolio. Dion’s plan now maybe is an 85. I’ll rank how many mid-21st century lives each party’s platform will kill, against a baseline of Norway or some other country with a good platform and bad geography/climate. I’m sure S.Harper’s will wind up killing millions.

I get it now. You are just making fun.

“I’m sure S.Harper’s will wind up killing millions”

Nobody is really that stupid.

had me going though….

Can’t wait ‘til January when Stevie bot has to stand up against the tide all by his lonesome without a Repug’s coat tails to hold onto.

I don’t see the need to unnecessarily introduce politics into the thread. Why do you Exusian? That is why I question the introducing of Santorum and his musings into the thread. He’s a strawman.

Your side is all about the politics rather than the science.

I am not on a “side” Exusian, sorry to break the news to ya. The science is clashing with the political system, and making little headway so far. You can hate the politics, but it is the politics which will determine whatever policies may be taken. Ignore them at your peril.

Paul S/G said: “The science is clashing with the political system, and making little headway so far. You can hate the politics, but it is the politics which will determine whatever policies may be taken. Ignore them at your peril”.

Yes, politics is based on science but unfortunately the politicians find it easier (more money perhaps) to support “your side” who continue to tell lies, supply misinformation, cherry pick data and a host of other fraudulent science techniques with the end result that the politics is not based on any real science at all.

That is why “your side” is so despicable. Why the politicians believe all this nonsense is a mystery. Are they that ignorant of some basic science skills? Or is it the idea of lucrative political funding from groups with a vested interest in the pseudo science and the promise of a rich afterlife once they leave politics?

Ian Forrester

Whe you refer to “tell lies, supply misinformation, cherry pick data and a host of other fraudulent science techniques”
I assume you are refering to Michael Mann and James Hansen et al.

How does that help your case?

Or perhaps you refer to the IPCC Pseudo scientific papers. Few really take them seriously any more.

Can you really site some real concrete science that actually supports AGW Ian?

Just wondering.

You are so clueless and ignorant of science, you are a joke.

Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of science knows who are the ones telling lies and using fraudulent techniques. And it is not Mann, Hansen or the scientists involved with IPCC.

It would be an utter waste of time citing (note the correct spelling) the actual papers showing the real science because you are either so ignorant that you would not understand them, or you are so dishonest you would ridicule them.

Ian Forrester

Just FYI;
Here is the support for the statement that Hansen’s work has now been discredited.


There is no debate about Mann’s work so I won’t post that again.

There are 4 main temperature records for the period 1979 to present, GISS, HadCRU, RSS and UAH. Since they show temperature anomalies, not actual temperatures (AGW deniers cannot understand the difference) the absolute temperature anomalies will be different due to the differing base periods used for the data sets. GISS uses the period 1951 to 1980, HadCRU 1961 to 1990 and RSS and UAH 1979 to 2000.

So if all four measured the actual temperature as being the same, the temperature anomalies would be different since the earth has been warming since 1951. Thus GISS has the largest anomaly since the 1951 to 1980 period had the lowest average temperature.

The AGW denier crowd, not understanding this simple scientific basis for this, crows that “GISS temperature data has been manipulated to show higher temperatures”.

This is complete rubbish. To verify this just examine the following graph, where Tamino has plotted the four sets of data based on the same base line:


You will see that the four sets of data are almost identical.

This is discussed in full at:


So Gary, how can you say that Hansen’s work has been discredited when it agrees almost exactly with the other sets of data?

Ian Forrester

” I assume you are referring to Michael Mann and James Hansen et al.
and the non existent CO2 temperature rise correlation.
and The Freon
and the Ozone
and the Acid rain
and the Computer Models
and the GISS
and Wikipedia
and Sea Level Rise
and The “Consensus”
and Polar Bears
and on and on and on

and the result of this Honesty?….From a scared 14 year old on youtube

“yes u r right and wut i think is the earth is so over populated with people and haw people have cars power plans facturys and they poot like a lot of poloothion so i think that the world is melting the ice and then wen it is all gon the world will have a world wide ice age killing all living things and resterting life all over aggen wen it melts all life will start overprolly even frome the feew living thins that surrvive if eny thing does well thanks and i hope u reed this =)”

Less time Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” in school is needed.

“I decided I just had to call because you’ve printed a picture of the Earth upside down” - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998

I am not on a “side” Ian, but nice try. As a front pew warmer, you see this issue in blacka and white terms and must demonize anyone who does not adhere to your extreme views.

Of course you are on the “right” side. How else could it be? Insecure people need the certainty of being absolutely right and you have found it in the AGW issue.

Paranoia has crept into the worldview of too many AGW supporters. They see conspiracy and dirty money under every bed when, in reality, only your teddybear is there Ian.