Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[kimmielittle]

Perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with agw can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.“this was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “climate research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…what do others think?”
“i will be emailing the journal to tell them i’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“it results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in nz. He has let a few papers through by michaels and gray in the past. I’ve had words with hans von storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in nice !”

From:

 

[fultonfish]

Is it me or is the MSM silent on this?

Here is a piece that I found:

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=506847

There is also somewhere else something about a lawsuit.

Isn’t there some kind of law prohibiting deliberate falsehood telling under penalty of perjury?

[Gee, maybe AlGore will have to give back the money from all the books he sold and he will have to apologize to all those little kids he frightened with stories about polar bears drowning.]

We need to find all these article and post them to every forum we have access to.

Especially before President Obama goes to the Copenhagen conference in December and does something really destructive and gives away the whole country.

 

[CJFrancis]

Earlier this year, Bolivia’s 18,000 year old ChacaItaya glacier finished its melting process. 80% of the glacier melted between 1987 and 2007. No one is saying that this glacier melted only due to man-made factors. However, green-house gases are speeding up the warming of the Earth.

Glaciers have a natural cycle of feeding rivers in the summer and gaining snow in the winter. However, if glaciers shrink too much, or disappear, they reduce the melt water that feeds rivers, which can cause big impacts on the people and land that relies on those rivers. Glaciers in the Himalayas and in many other areas are shrinking and are projected to disappear.

The Arctic is not as warm as it was during the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years ago. However, if/when all of the permanent Arctic ice melts, the Arctic will be warmer than the Eemian interglacial. Recent projections of sea ice loss suggest that the Arctic ocean will likely be free of summer sea ice sometime between 2059 and 2078. There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years.

So, we have broken some temperature records and we are approaching other records that cover 700,000 years. In addition, we are seeing other extreme weather, including more hurricanes, more droughts, and more floods. In Canada, the pine beetle used to be killed off by cold winters. We aren’t having cold winters as frequently as before, so the pine beetles are killing many more trees.

Let’s not bury our heads in the sand. Our weather is getting more extreme, and green-house gases are a significant factor in speeding up global warming and climate change. Let’s do what we can to reduce pollution and green-house gases.

 

[CJFrancis]

Scientists have forecast the speed at which glaciers and the Arctic ice will melt. In many cases the melting has been faster than what was forecast. So, obviously scientists do not have a perfect model for what is happening. However, an 18,000 year old glacier in Bolivia finished melting in early 2009 and a lot of ice has melted in the Arctic in the past 10 years.

How can climate change deniers say that there is NO evidence for global warming? Even the title of this thread is a gross exaggeration: “Now PROVEN that the ENTIRE global warming threat is based on fabricated data”.

Some climate change deniers sound like the people who say that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon. Thousands of scientists are studying the Arctic and Antarctic Ice, glaciers around the world, etc. They study the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, the temperature of the surface of oceans and seas. They study many things and build computer models and test how well those models predict future temperature levels and melting rates. After all of this work, the scientists try to poke holes in each others work.

Currently, I think most scientists have a 90% confidence level in the global warming conclusions. They are only 50-60% confident that the increase in hurricanes is tied to global warming. Scientists give their confidence level. However, climate change deniers usually say they are 100% certain that No evidence supports global warming. It’s like belief in climate change denial is like belief in God.

I feel like ten people are on a life raft in the middle of the ocean and five people agree that we should ration food and water, because we don’t know when we’ll be saved. And the other five people are saying everyone should eat and drink as much as they want, because they are skeptical that the food and water measurements were 100% accurate.

An average household with two medium-sized sedans now emits more than 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. Should we not be cautious about the impact of that much pollution?

Will the climate change deniers be convinced when more glaciers melt or when the Arctic Ocean is completely free of ice in a summer in the future? God created the Earth and everything in it. God loves His creation. We must be good stewards and love the Earth too.

 

[kimmielittle]

Earlier this year, Bolivia’s 18,000 year old ChacaItaya glacier finished its melting process. 80% of the glacier melted between 1987 and 2007. No one is saying that this glacier melted only due to man-made factors. However, green-house gases are speeding up the warming of the Earth.

Glaciers have a natural cycle of feeding rivers in the summer and gaining snow in the winter. However, if glaciers shrink too much, or disappear, they reduce the melt water that feeds rivers, which can cause big impacts on the people and land that relies on those rivers. Glaciers in the Himalayas and in many other areas are shrinking and are projected to disappear.

The Arctic is not as warm as it was during the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years ago. However, if/when all of the permanent Arctic ice melts, the Arctic will be warmer than the Eemian interglacial. Recent projections of sea ice loss suggest that the Arctic ocean will likely be free of summer sea ice sometime between 2059 and 2078. There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years.

So, we have broken some temperature records and we are approaching other records that cover 700,000 years. In addition, we are seeing other extreme weather, including more hurricanes, more droughts, and more floods. In Canada, the pine beetle used to be killed off by cold winters. We aren’t having cold winters as frequently as before, so the pine beetles are killing many more trees.

Let’s not bury our heads in the sand. Our weather is getting more extreme, and green-house gases are a significant factor in speeding up global warming and climate change. Let’s do what we can to reduce pollution and green-house gases.

Hiyas

Let’s not bury our heads in the sand

** Exactly **

As Upton Sinclair once said:“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

Let’s not bury our heads in the sand

 

[kimmielittle]

Scientists have forecast the speed at which glaciers and the Arctic ice will melt. In many cases the melting has been faster than what was forecast. So, obviously scientists ** do not have a perfect model for what is happening. However,** an 18,000 year old glacier in Bolivia finished melting in early 2009 and a lot of ice has melted in the Arctic in the past 10 years.

But we are being sold that it IS a perfect model

How can climate change deniers say that there is NO evidence for global warming? Even the title of this thread is a gross exaggeration: “Now PROVEN that the ENTIRE global warming threat is based on fabricated data”.

Really most of us aren’t: We are saying the fabricated data…deceits which aren’t
ad hominem which the fear mongers use ] but data related fabrications are the wrong reasons to support fear hyperbole. Which lines the pockets of who?

We believe, if we can’t get government / science to defend / control themselves…how in the world can we expect it to protect us?

Some climate change deniers sound like the people who say that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon. Thousands of scientists are studying the Arctic and Antarctic Ice, glaciers around the world, etc. They study the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, the temperature of the surface of oceans and seas. They study many things and build computer models and test how well those models predict future temperature levels and melting rates. After all of this work, ** the scientists try to poke holes in each others work. **

That IS exactly what is being done…with good reason.

It’s like belief in climate change denial is like belief in God.

I beg your pardon. I’m not bowing to false idols.

I feel like ten people are on a life raft in the middle of the ocean and five people agree that we should ration food and water, because we don’t know when we’ll be saved. And the other five people are saying everyone should eat and drink as much as they want, because they are skeptical that the food and water measurements were 100% accurate.

IMHO, poor reference…In this case the food and water is being given to the BIG ship. We are being asked [forced] to finance them.

An average household with two medium-sized sedans now emits more than 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. Should we not be cautious about the impact of that much pollution?

IMHO: Many people think because there are some of us who challenge the “FINDINGS” that we are your enemy. In truth, we are not. We just demand more than hyperbole.

Many of us have “Green Households”.

BUT, until they get people who suggest wearing condoms is the answer to climate change and other such nonsense…

God created the Earth and everything in it. God loves His creation. We must be good stewards and love the Earth too.

Amen
But loving the earth demands better than hyperbole…It demands TRUTH in data.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[kimmielittle]

Think it isn’t fear driven?
Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?
Saturday, November 21, 2009, 11:20 AM
Wesley J. Smith
2.bp.blogspot.com/_OEoNzDCQX5s/SwgQtzr8YdI/AAAAAAAABcg/ShsMXqjQbsY/s400/unbelievablecover.jpgThe UN global warming bureaucrats in charge of the hysteria section never run out of imaginative horrors being caused–or coming soon–by (now stalled) global warming. In today’s edition, it’s a cause of prostitution! From the story:The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said. Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country. “Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection,” Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City.

…

Which country do you think she represents? What does she hope to get?

 

[kimmielittle]

**Too Much Sex Causes Global Warming! “Take Cold Showers,” Scientist Advises
**
Posted: 20 Apr 2009 07:02 PM PDT
A famous global warming scientist issued an alarming study today finding that too much sex is a major cause of global warming. “All that heavy breathing releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Dr, Raymond Sunburn, the head of the Aspen/Davos Collective’s think tank, Keep Earth Cool, said today. Sunburn, who earned the world’s first Ph.D. in biospheric computer modeling studies, added, “Our computer models show that if people don’t reduce their rate of intercourse and heavy petting to, at most, once a month, the polar bears will become extinct by 2050.”

When asked what people should do who get “pent up,” the ironically named Dr. Sunburn said, “Take a cold shower. In that way, you both avoid using more than your fair share of exhales and you save the earth by heating less water. There’s no question about it. Adopting a monastic lifestyle is good for the planet.”

That yarn could get me an anti-global warming government study grant. Besides, it is about as sensible as the real scientists who claim that fat people are endangering the planet. From the story:

*Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production--a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet. Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage. Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: "Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler." Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.*

Wesley J. Smith

 

[4elise]

Earlier this year, Bolivia’s 18,000 year old ChacaItaya glacier finished its melting process. 80% of the glacier melted between 1987 and 2007. No one is saying that this glacier melted only due to man-made factors. However, green-house gases are speeding up the warming of the Earth.

Glaciers have a natural cycle of feeding rivers in the summer and gaining snow in the winter. However, if glaciers shrink too much, or disappear, they reduce the melt water that feeds rivers, which can cause big impacts on the people and land that relies on those rivers. Glaciers in the Himalayas and in many other areas are shrinking and are projected to disappear.

The Arctic is not as warm as it was during the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years ago. However, if/when all of the permanent Arctic ice melts, the Arctic will be warmer than the Eemian interglacial. Recent projections of sea ice loss suggest that the Arctic ocean will likely be free of summer sea ice sometime between 2059 and 2078. There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years.

So, we have broken some temperature records and we are approaching other records that cover 700,000 years. In addition, we are seeing other extreme weather, including more hurricanes, more droughts, and more floods. In Canada, the pine beetle used to be killed off by cold winters. We aren’t having cold winters as frequently as before, so the pine beetles are killing many more trees.

Let’s not bury our heads in the sand. Our weather is getting more extreme, and green-house gases are a significant factor in speeding up global warming and climate change. Let’s do what we can to reduce pollution and green-house gases.

Sadly many, many prefer to bury their heads in the sand, grab any thread that supports that this isn’t really happening, after all 50 years forward… why worry now! More important to worry about what we pay in taxes today, vilify anyone who tries to speak up for the poor who will be impacted around the world - the rivers in Asia that are fed by the Himalayas when these are reduced, the food crisis that will follow hard to even begin to imagine.

 

[4elise]

Scientists have forecast the speed at which glaciers and the Arctic ice will melt. In many cases the melting has been faster than what was forecast. So, obviously scientists do not have a perfect model for what is happening. However, an 18,000 year old glacier in Bolivia finished melting in early 2009 and a lot of ice has melted in the Arctic in the past 10 years.

How can climate change deniers say that there is NO evidence for global warming? Even the title of this thread is a gross exaggeration: “Now PROVEN that the ENTIRE global warming threat is based on fabricated data”.

Some climate change deniers sound like the people who say that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon. Thousands of scientists are studying the Arctic and Antarctic Ice, glaciers around the world, etc. They study the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, the temperature of the surface of oceans and seas. They study many things and build computer models and test how well those models predict future temperature levels and melting rates. After all of this work, the scientists try to poke holes in each others work.

Currently, I think most scientists have a 90% confidence level in the global warming conclusions. They are only 50-60% confident that the increase in hurricanes is tied to global warming. Scientists give their confidence level. However, climate change deniers usually say they are 100% certain that No evidence supports global warming. It’s like belief in climate change denial is like belief in God.

I feel like ten people are on a life raft in the middle of the ocean and five people agree that we should ration food and water, because we don’t know when we’ll be saved. And the other five people are saying everyone should eat and drink as much as they want, because they are skeptical that the food and water measurements were 100% accurate.

An average household with two medium-sized sedans now emits more than 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. Should we not be cautious about the impact of that much pollution?

Will the climate change deniers be convinced when more glaciers melt or when the Arctic Ocean is completely free of ice in a summer in the future? God created the Earth and everything in it. God loves His creation. We must be good stewards and love the Earth too.

:clapping::tiphat::yup:
Wait for it, wait for it… someone soon will post that since we exhale CO2 how can it be a problem?

 

[Ender]

However, an 18,000 year old glacier in Bolivia finished melting in early 2009 and a lot of ice has melted in the Arctic in the past 10 years.

True, but as the earth is round and has two poles, what does it mean when sea ice in Antarctica is increasing?
climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-i.html

After all of this work, the scientists try to poke holes in each others work.

True again, that’s the way science works. So why has Hanson at NASA refused to give out the raw US temperature data as well the algorithms they use to “adjust” the numbers to get the values they use in creating the temperature history?

They are only 50-60% confident that the increase in hurricanes is tied to global warming. Scientists give their confidence level.

You really shouldn’t just make these numbers up. It seems highly improbably that that many scientists are convinced of the link between global warming and hurricanes - especially as we are experiencing a 30 year low in a measurement called Accumulated Cyclone Energy. Global hurricane activity has sunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/

An average household with two medium-sized sedans now emits more than 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. Should we not be cautious about the impact of that much pollution?

Two environmentalists have just published a book called Eat a Dog, Save the Earth in which they calculate the carbon footprints of various things and it turns out that a medium sized dog has the same footprint as an SUV. Tell you what, I’ll sell my SUV when you eat your dog.

Ender

 

[4elise]

Two environmentalists have just published a book called Eat a Dog, Save the Earth in which they calculate the carbon footprints of various things and it turns out that a medium sized dog has the same footprint as an SUV. Tell you what, I’ll sell my SUV when you eat your dog.

Ender

GREAT argument to stop breeding dogs!
(and going vegan less animals raised for food will make a tremendous improvement!)

 

[4elise]

True, but as the earth is round and has two poles, what does it mean when sea ice in Antarctica is increasing?
climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-i.html
True again, that’s the way science works. So why has Hanson at NASA refused to give out the raw US temperature data as well the algorithms they use to “adjust” the numbers to get the values they use in creating the temperature history?
You really shouldn’t just make these numbers up. It seems highly improbably that that many scientists are convinced of the link between global warming and hurricanes - especially as we are experiencing a 30 year low in a measurement called Accumulated Cyclone Energy. Global hurricane activity has sunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/
Two environmentalists have just published a book called Eat a Dog, Save the Earth in which they calculate the carbon footprints of various things and it turns out that a medium sized dog has the same footprint as an SUV. Tell you what, I’ll sell my SUV when you eat your dog.

Ender

Hi Ender!

wattsupwiththat.com & climate-skeptic.com could they be considered un-biased sources either?

Allow me to add a resource that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is a partner to:
catholicsandclimatechange.org/ - speaking out for the poor of the WORLD… - I know you know about it Ender, but others on this thread may be unfamiliar with this resource:

Their partners:

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
* Social Development and World Peace/Environmental Justice Program More
* Catholic Campaign for Human Development More
* Migration and Refugee Services of the USCCB More

National Religious Partnership for the Environment More
Other Partnering Organizations
* Catholic Relief Services More
* National Council of Catholic Women More
* Catholic Health Association of the United States More
* Catholic Charities USA More
* National Catholic Rural Life Conference More
* Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities More
* Franciscan Action Network More
* Carmelite NGO More
* Leadership Conference of Women Religious More
* Conference of Major Superiors of Men More

 

[Ender]

wattsupwiththat.com & climate-skeptic.com could they be considered un-biased sources either?

Allow me to add a resource that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is a partner to:
catholicsandclimatechange.org/ - speaking out for the poor of the WORLD…

I suspect that Watts and climate-skeptic are less biased than *Catholics and climate change *but, more to the point, the issue is not whether they are biased but whether they are correct. That data seem to support their arguments. In fact, you should note that they are not simply writing opinions but are linking to other sources to provide the scientific basis for their comments. Unlike the post to which I was responding, I provided links to information to counter the unfounded claims being made.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

I suspect that Watts and climate-skeptic are less biased than *Catholics and climate change *but, more to the point, the issue is not whether they are biased but whether they are correct. That data seem to support their arguments. In fact, you should note that they are not simply writing opinions but are linking to other sources to provide the scientific basis for their comments. Unlike the post to which I was responding, I provided links to information to counter the unfounded claims being made.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Learn about Catholic Principles and Teachings applied to the issue of global climate change:

• Prudence—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action

“Prudence is intelligence applied to our actions … a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good.” —U.S. Bishops

Amen!!! ** intelligence *applied to our actions ***

Especially, after finding the deceptions, frauds, cover-ups.
We are called as Catholics / Christians not only to be good stewards, BUT to expose harmful deceptions. Especially, when those deceptions endanger the poorest of humans.

**

Poverty

**

—concern for those least able to bear the burden

Does anybody understand the impact upon the poor counties being targeted. If they can’t develop; they remain poor, uneducated, ill able to improve the quality of their life. Who loses the most? Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy**.

**

The Common Good—promotion of solidarity over self-interest

Although, I admire the Bishops intent…ALL this link does - is show the good Bishops were lied to as well.

BTW: That page hasn’t been updated recently to address the new findings.

BE GREEN for the RIGHT reasons

 

[4elise]

Amen!!! ** intelligence *applied to our actions ***

Especially, after finding the deceptions, frauds, cover-ups.
We are called as Catholics / Christians not only to be good stewards, BUT to expose harmful deceptions. Especially, when those deceptions endanger the poorest of humans.

**Does anybody understand the impact upon the poor counties being targeted. If they can’t develop; they remain poor, uneducated, ill able to improve the quality of their life. Who loses the most? Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.

**Although, I admire the Bishops intent…ALL this link does - is show the good Bishops were lied to as well.

BTW: That page hasn’t been updated recently to address the new findings.

BE GREEN for the RIGHT reasons

It is laudable that your concerns are beyond our borders - actually kimmielittle, I think that puts you in a very small group of individuals. You willingness to reflect on the impact to people living in rural communities around the world is what I believe the Church is calling us to -

Prudence—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action

Does this mean landing on and agreeing with anything that points in the direction of our being able to continue to exploit the planet? (i.e. emails which may or may not be saying scientists don’t agree?) Agreeing with only that which supports our position that we don’t want to change, we don’t want to spend more money, we don’t want to be the leaders if the rest of the world isn’t on board?

How would our switching to a ‘more expensive’ energy hurt them? If we produce more energy by wind and solar and create the smart grid necessary to deliver it - doesn’t that leave more traditional energy available for their use? And doesn’t our development of these technologies eventually lead to them being less expensive?*

The ‘cheapest’ form of energy in most developing countries is the man power - believe me carbon based power is NOT cheap there - many are moving more quickly with hydro and even solar power… it is the damage that is being caused by climate change, rising sea levels, diseases NOW present at lower elevations that are impacting many areas of the developing world.

*As an aside a small rural hospital in Zimbabwe I know of, was able to install solar energy because it has been developed in the west, is now cheaper than the fuel to run the generators and will provide safe, ongoing energy - this is cheaper today because it is USED in the West.

kimmielittle - I think you would enjoy this video: catholicclimatecovenant.org/ because I believe you do care about the people around the world, we do need to take action, personally and as communities - question the sources that try to distract us from this goal to care for our brothers and sisters around the world.

This thread started with a very strong title: Major scandal; Now proven that the **entire **global warming threat is based on fabricated data

Actually the article that is quoted:

The Register, 29 September 2009
theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

This article Is questioning the sources of tree ring data - accusing scientists of cherry picking data related to the the middle ages. The hacked emails are may indeed be real and reveal that THESE scientists were being less than objective to try to prove their point - and at the worst it proves that their findings are inconclusive - some core samples supported their thesis, some did not - and they reveled only that which supported their theory - so at the worst it is inconclusive — but the science of global warming withstands much more than that - there are way too many other things,

A tongue-in-cheek article in the Guardian lays out what e-mail would have to be revealed to do sway George Monbiot;

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

Blessings

 

[4elise]

kimmielittle:
Wesley J. Smith

Too Much Sex Causes Global Warming! “Take Cold Showers,” Scientist Advises
Posted: 20 Apr 2009 07:02 PM PDT
A famous global warming scientist issued an alarming study today finding that too much sex is a major cause of global warming. “All that heavy breathing releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Dr, Raymond Sunburn, the head of the Aspen/Davos Collective’s think tank, Keep Earth Cool, said today. Sunburn, who earned the world’s first Ph.D. in biospheric computer modeling studies, added, “Our computer models show that if people don’t reduce their rate of intercourse and heavy petting to, at most, once a month, the polar bears will become extinct by 2050.”

When asked what people should do who get “pent up,” the ironically named Dr. Sunburn said, “Take a cold shower. In that way, you both avoid using more than your fair share of exhales and you save the earth by heating less water. There’s no question about it. Adopting a monastic lifestyle is good for the planet.”

That yarn could get me an anti-global warming government study grant.

You do realize that this was a joke, right?

 

[Ender]

How would our switching to a ‘more expensive’ energy hurt them? If we produce more energy by wind and solar and create the smart grid necessary to deliver it - doesn’t that leave more traditional energy available for their use?

It is simply not possible to generate sufficient energy from windmills and solar panels to replace coal plants. To do it with solar would require a 100 mile square covered with collector panels, which, at ten thousand square miles, is about the size of Massachusetts. Now if the plan is to cover all of Massachusetts I might agree to do it, but not otherwise. Solar has some great applications but the generation of massive amounts of electricity is not one of them.

Ender

 

[4elise]

It is simply not possible to generate sufficient energy from windmills and solar panels to replace coal plants. To do it with solar would require a 100 mile square covered with collector panels, which, at ten thousand square miles, is about the size of Massachusetts. Now if the plan is to cover all of Massachusetts I might agree to do it, but not otherwise. Solar has some great applications but the generation of massive amounts of electricity is not one of them.

Ender

And your stats on wind?