an alternative view on climate change

Paul Krugman the Nobel Laureate Economist (whose Nobel destroyed any credibility that once honoured award held in my eyes) wrote over the weekend that the Members of Congress that voted against the Waxman Markey Cap and Trade and everything else bill that passed (219-212) on Friday should be charged with "treason against the planet". He joins a long line of bloggers and columnists calling for punishments against those they call "deniers". (Vist Climate Depot for Examples)

I completely agree but would change it to "crimes against humanity".

I agree that all who voted should be held responsible in the future, and all like Krugman, Romm and Watts and Morano (yes even myself) who promote or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming should be held responsible for their actions in the future when the theory of global warming is or is not disproved. (I personally believe that it has already been falsified and that by simply adjusting models for recent data is not science at all, but since that seems to be overlooked by everyone involved I do not hold much hope for winning based on science, only empirical data will win the day). The penalties for being wrong should be the same for either side, both for crimes against humanity, just for different reasons.

If the proponents wish to call for retribution for opposition to their positions then as an act of civilized society the accusers should be held just as accountable as those they call for retaliation against. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (this was my primary school motto and was written above the stage in the gymnasium).

The problem is how do you determine the guilt? That is easy the predictions are recorded in print and must be used as the baseline. Climate modellers re-run their projections every year, and revise earlier works based on them. So this practice can continue but the IPCC AR4 report that is treated as the bible of Global Warming should be the document that all is based on for the purposes of determining guilt. If the predictions and claims in this document do not track observations than the theory is WRONG, does not matter who supports it does not matter who believes it and especially does not matter who wrote it, it is only valid until proven wrong through observations.

So if Krugman et al seem to think they are justified in calling for punishments they had better be just as prepared to be judged themselves and receive the same penalties that they call for. I am willing to accept consequences for being wrong, are you?

Daryl Tremblay aka The Climate Heretic, Illiquid Assets

Last night I posted a comment on Climate Progress in response to a  response that alarmist in chief (AIC) Joe Romm made to another commenter trying to make a point about extreme weather having always occurred in the past. Here are the relevant exchanges...

--------------------------------------------

r simpson Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm

We have had severe weather before AGW and climate change became worn out political expressions.

[JR: We just haven't had this much severe weather, but thank you for your irrelevant comment.]

--------------------------------------------

Daryl T Says: ( My Actual Name)
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm

[JR: We just haven't had this much severe weather, but thank you for your irrelevant comment.]

Complete and utter BS Mr Romm and you know it. Extreme weather frequency is not unusual nor unprecedented when looked at over the available record. Nor is there any trend higher.

[JR: Snip. This is a long-debunked denier talking point. Post your disinformation elsewhere please.]

--------------------------------------------

What Romm snipped was a challenge to his statement based on reporting methodology and improvements in weather monitoring technology and when analyzed using longer term data sets such as tornadoes and hurricanes that there is no trend at all.

I also challenged Insurance Industry figures, and the recent Chart of extreme weather impacting the Grid that was in the latest "Death Note" from the administration (“Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.”) did not conclude that extreme weather events are increasing even though the chart implies just that. This was because of changes in reporting and management of the data, and this data has been commented on across the blogs and the real story was discovered by contacting the data administrator Thanks WUWT.

I also told him I could provide him links to the data and relevant research if he asked so he could continue to make absurd comments. (Here are a couple of examples)

WMO UN Report

NOAA Report on Storm Damage

So what does Romm do when confronted with a challenge. Turtles and uses his Admin login to snip the comments. Just proves if you do not have a leg to stand on it is hard to rise to a challenge.

Just did my Internet Rounds, Climate Progress, NSIDC, Real Climate and the usual suspects WUWT, The New Drudge like Climate Depot, SDA, etc.

Just looking through the comments on these sites and I see a sign of the desperate nature of the AGW movement's struggle to keep the message alive. Over at Climate Depot there is a blog war starting over comments of all things, between Climate Depot and Climate Progress, a site that does not have comments as it is a content aggregator, that has spilled over into Watts Up With That.

Seems the faithful over at Climate Progress have run out of science and social policies to hang their hats on and have went back to Plan A, just be rude. Joe Romm the site blogger has decided to go off on completely unrelated topics about the hateful content found occasionally on WUWT and SPEWED by his readership regularly and by himself as well.

The current dust up is violent and hateful speech from readers calling for jail and death for all who oppose them and from both sides it comes, but it is fuelled and stoked by writers like Romm who chide and belittle and call people names as a form of filler content like many other AGW proponent sites and liberal biased news like MSNBC.(see My recent blogs about Chris Matthews).

Now I am not above giving the odd Moonbat or Environaut, and even hemp hat and wingnut out for effect but I do not base my blogs on them. This shows the AGW supporters are bereft of new science or data supporting their already falsified theory and it really is the start of the end for them.

I for one will not miss being called names and ridiculed daily, but when you know your position and interpretation of the data is right you have to stand up for what you believe, and if the rash of recent events showing people doing just that is any indication then things are looking better for all of us.

Ironically this is the message being advanced across media and Government "do or die" is the new mantra in the climate change crusade. I have commented that you know when the death knell is sounding when the claims become more and more dire and more and more unsupported by the science.

Earth 2100 from ABC is the "jumping the shark"  moment in the AGW hysteria only the fully converted would accept this as any sort of plausible possible future, for the rest of the population it was a flawed fantastical flight of fallacy and exposes the true extremist nature of the insane war on carbon.

The tide has turned and I as I predicted the movement itself has become its own worst enemy, its constant upping the ante of catastrophe has reached a crescendo that no free thinking human could support.

The decline will be slow at first but will pick up momentum over the next 2 years until it becomes party jokes at business conferences and articles in MSM mocking the hysteria in an effort to mask their complicity. I for one hope we NEVER FORGET how we got to this point.

Ok First the Good News! There has been a World Wide Reduction in CO2 Emissions of 3% over the last 12 months!!

Bad News is...

This is what the economy with a 3% drop in CO2 emissions looks like.

Now Imagine a 80% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Makes you feel all cold and shaky doesn't it?

 to watch the video
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090520094629.aspx

Thanks to Just want the Truth at WUWT.

Democrats further declined to develop emissions-free energy sources such as new hydroelectric power, and decided to permit the EPA to write the rules necessary to regulate water vapour as air pollution. 

So we knew it was coming, Fog, clouds, mist, dew, rain all caused by man and in need of regulation by the EPA. This has gone from amusing, to scary to ridiculous. Some other choice items...

Capping Gasoline Prices at $5 a Gallon – A Terry amendment to suspend the legislation if it forces the price of gasoline above $5 per gallon. “If we can put a cap on carbon, we darn sure ought to be able to put a cap on gasoline price increases from this bill,” Barton argued during the debate.  Democrats disagreed, and voted to let the price go up.

Capping Unemployment at 15 Percent – An amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., suspending the act to protect jobs if the unemployment rate reaches 15 percent because of the global warming bill. A second Upton proposal would shift global warming money to worker retraining if the bill propels the national jobless rate over 10 percent. Democrats overruled Republicans, however, on the Upton unemployment cap and the worker retraining amendment.

So they kept the high costs and eliminated the "precautionary principle of suspending the legislation if it harms the economy", if that does not tell you what you need to know then nothing will.

Source:http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7059