[40fordcoupe]

Seems that this is the way that the Democrats have been working for years. Maybe someday, the rest of their 'exploits' will come to light.

Dufas,
IMHO you are right on, The left has used fear as a tool for years and years.
One of my favorite authors, Michael Crichton, portrayed this very well in his book "State of Fear." When it came out almost all the global warming believers condemned it right away.
The only problems was he had a lot of footnotes backing up his contentions. Still well worth reading when it is too cold to go to the shop.
Bob B.

[dynosor]

Interesting blog here about the Toyota wars for anybody who cares.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/2...oyota-war-has/

Interesting comment found at your link, suggesting why Toyota is in the cross-hairs:

"Toyota is not only competition to the Government-owned Chrysler and GM, but it also doesn’t have any politically inconvenient union workers who would get upset by attacking it. Not only that, Toyota Camry and Corolla are some of the best-selling cars out there, and Toyota trucks are rapidly building a good reputation.

On top of all that, Toyota was the top manufacturer that cashed in on the “Cash for Clunkers” program that was almost certainly meant to pump up Chrysler and GM.

So I can completely see why they’re targeting Toyota. The problem is, Toyota has a lot of very loyal customer who will not appreciate this one bit. And most of them are able to vote.

BTW, loyal Toyota driver since 1990. They cost more than a lot of other cars, but they hold their value. And for good reason. The Corolla in particular is a really good value.

tom on February 23, 2010 at 8:12 PM"

[cyclestart]

The funny thing is that the two are connected: How many Pruis vehicles has Toyota sold due to the belief in global warming? How much money does Toyota stand to lose when the penny drops about their cars and the climate?

It's possible to appreciate clean energy and efficiency while having no fixed opinion on the climate change controversy. I like the hybrid concept. A really good electric-only car would also be appealing. These cars may remain popular even if climate change is completely discarded by all scientists.

The safety concerns are Toyota's real worry.

[40fordcoupe]

IMHO It would be hard to say how many Prius were sold because of Global warming. When I bought mine the dealer had two on the lot. I had to wait one day because I wanted a different color. Something that would match the dust on my dirt road.
Anyway when gas prices went up the waiting period was months and when gas prices fell they are on the dealer's lot again. I have a friend who has two, both with over 100K miles and still running the original batteries. He thinks man made global warming is a hoax too.
Probably in Hollywood almost all of them are sold to show solidarity with the global warming cause. Goes right along with all the mansions and private jets don't you think?

[jhowelb]

Does anyone else find a striking similarity between the over exaggerated estimates of the size and effect of the tsunami (Chile earthquake) and the AGW crisis et al?

NOAA after all is the "gold standard" of both "events"!

[dufas]

Does anyone else find a striking similarity between the over exaggerated estimates of the size and effect of the tsunami (Chile earthquake) and the AGW crisis et al?

NOAA after all is the "gold standard" of both "events"!

NOAA, IPCC, and most politicians are among the many in power that can 'back peddle' while moving forward.....

[jhowelb]

The parallel I see is their prediction description a nonevent as a disaster of Biblical proportions! (Mt Everest mountains from nonexistent mole hills!)

I'll leave the motivation to the reader. Ulterior motive vs plain ignorance would be another irrelevant question to the urgent decision whether to follow the lead of these "scientists" or reject their rantings out of hand.

[dufas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change


By AL GORE
Published: February 27, 2010

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.


Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

snip============================================== ==========================

[mongo46538]

Snippet:
Climate skepticism covers a broad range of views. A first group -- call them the professionals -- has often raised legitimate questions, whether about methodology and transparency, and stuck more or less to a scientific critique about different aspects of climate science. And then there are the shouters, who don't add much more than sensationalism, confusion, and outright deception to the debate. To sort out the noise from the serious concerns, FP is here to help.

Link

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...imate_skeptics

[jhowelb]

NAW! That's just restating the "big lie"! (You know, there are lies and then there are damned lies!)

[dufas]

Snippet:
Climate skepticism covers a broad range of views. A first group -- call them the professionals -- has often raised legitimate questions, whether about methodology and transparency, and stuck more or less to a scientific critique about different aspects of climate science. And then there are the shouters, who don't add much more than sensationalism, confusion, and outright deception to the debate. To sort out the noise from the serious concerns, FP is here to help.

In other words, we peons had better shut up and let the politicians, Al Gore, Mongo, and fellow followers screw us any way they want. Sort of like telling the Jews to shut up and keep moving, we Nazi are professionals and know what has to be done......That building with the smoke stacks is really just a shower and warming place. We only have your best interests in mind...

[TomB]

[QUOTE=dufas;743108]

Snippet:
Climate skepticism covers a broad range of views. A first group -- call them the professionals -- has often raised legitimate questions, whether about methodology and transparency, and stuck more or less to a scientific critique about different aspects of climate science. And then there are the shouters, who don't add much more than sensationalism, confusion, and outright deception to the debate. To sort out the noise from the serious concerns, FP is here to help.

In other words, we peons had better shut up and let the politicians, Al Gore, Mongo, and fellow followers screw us any way they want. Sort of like telling the Jews to shut up and keep moving, we Nazi are professionals and know what has to be done......That building with the smoke stacks is really just a shower and warming place. We only have your best interests in mind...[/

QUOTE]

I think that is a discussion about a quote taken out of context. The article from Foreign Policy seems to be a reasonable fair presentation of the viewpoint of 11 AGW skeptics. The paragraph in question simply introduces that group of 11 as scientists that have a scientific basis for their concerns. Further, even the quote does not state that there are only two groups, ‘professionals’ and ‘shouters ‘. There could be 3, 10 or even 100 groups but the extremes of the set do seem validly defined by those labels.

When I read the whole article I saw 10 individuals saying that the AGW idea was questionable because it was for one reason or another bad scientific methodology and therefore it should not be directly used as the basis of ‘policy’. The argument in general was that there is 'climate science' and 'climate policy' and the two should not be wed until the science was somewhat valid. To a large degree that has been the viewpoint exposed on this blog, even if most of our contributors don’t make a living by doing climate science.

Once you see 'climate science' and 'climate policy' as two endeavors then each may be criticized. To paraphrase Richard Lindzen (page 5 in the FP article), it looks like a group of eco-nuts set on turning back the industrial revolution effectively seized ‘climate science’ for the purpose of influencing ‘climate policy’ . Given that, I think, there is a good reason for the ‘professionals’ to ridicule the ‘climate scientists’ back to good methodology while the ‘shouters’ obstruct the ‘climate policy’ makers long enough that we can see just what is happening.

Tom

[Robin Hewitt]

Phil Jones admits he wrote some "very awful emails".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8543289.stm

[dufas]

[quote=TomB;743175]

Snippet:
Climate skepticism covers a broad range of views. A first group -- call them the professionals -- has often raised legitimate questions, whether about methodology and transparency, and stuck more or less to a scientific critique about different aspects of climate science. And then there are the shouters, who don't add much more than sensationalism, confusion, and outright deception to the debate. To sort out the noise from the serious concerns, FP is here to help.

In other words, we peons had better shut up and let the politicians, Al Gore, Mongo, and fellow followers screw us any way they want. Sort of like telling the Jews to shut up and keep moving, we Nazi are professionals and know what has to be done......That building with the smoke stacks is really just a shower and warming place. We only have your best interests in mind...[/

QUOTE]

I think that is a discussion about a quote taken out of context. The article from Foreign Policy seems to be a reasonable fair presentation of the viewpoint of 11 AGW skeptics. The paragraph in question simply introduces that group of 11 as scientists that have a scientific basis for their concerns. Further, even the quote does not state that there are only two groups, ‘professionals’ and ‘shouters ‘. There could be 3, 10 or even 100 groups but the extremes of the set do seem validly defined by those labels. Tom

I also read the article and came away with much the same analysis as you. My contention was that to break out a small snippet which was out of context with the body of the article and present it as it was done sends the message that no one is to have any thoughts about the matter unless they were one of the anointed ones.

This "sound byte' style is a similar tactic that left wing politicians and supporters use all the time. I facetiously remarked about that..........

[markotime]

Ho, hum. Many aren't keeping up on their reading. IPCC turns out to be a lackey of the WWF and Greenpeace, Carbon trading turns out to be a wealth-transfer ultra-socialist game (with Gore getting a huge skim of the "brokerage" fees), and the global temperatures proving the warming have been "homogenized" with the original, raw data falling into 'the dog ate my homework' abyss. Sorry, bring me some uncompromised "real" science before I jump on another bandwagon...

[fizzissist]

This should cheer you guys up!

I happen to know Charlie Hutter, and this article really does reflect his philosophy.

"..Educators should not forget about preparing students for jobs that don't demand a four-year degree at a college or university, Hutter said. A machinist working at Click Bond can earn up to $70,000 a year."

http://www.rgj.com/article/20100307/...for-Click-Bond

Didn't know where to post this....hoping it'll get posted along in other places with your help.

[40fordcoupe]

Snippet:
And then there are the shouters, who don't add much more than sensationalism, confusion, and outright deception to the debate.

I would definitely agree with this statement if the word "shouters" is changed to "politicians."
What was it some giant brain in Obama's cadre said "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[Swiss]

The whole carbon credit deal is nothing but a scam of a cottage industry that Al Gore expects to proafit from.

Whenever someone mentions Al Gore in the context of climate change denial, I know they don't know what they're talking about.

Climate change has nothing to do with Al Gore. Don't listen to Al Gore. Ignore him, he's irrelevant. He doesn't even fully understand the science. As with all matters of science, the only place you should be looking is in peer reviewed journals, and the only people you should be listening to are people who understand and reference them and accurately relate the information in them.

That means don't listen to Al Gore, don't listen to Glen Beck, or Bill-O, or Barack Obama, and not me, or anyone else on this forum. And especially don't listen to anyone who has a vested interest in either outcome.

Please, study the science behind it, not the politics. Find out why the scientfic consensus is that humans are affecting the climate. And if you have any questions, I will try to point you in the direction of the science which answers them.

A good video which summarises the science behind climate change is this one: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo"]YouTube- 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate[/ame]

Swiss

[MyCattMaxx]

I am sure our being here is affecting the climate just a little.
Ask me if I think the changes that we make by being alive are causing catastrophic changes that will cause the earth to kill us!
The earth has been proven to have cyclic weather changes over the centuries.
I don't think throwing $$$ at it is going to change it.
If the warmists believe it they can use their $$ not mine.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Please, study the science behind it, not the politics. Find out why the scientfic consensus is that humans are affecting the climate. And if you have any questions, I will try to point you in the direction of the science which answers them.

Swiss

So we are back to "the science is settled" ploy again?

1) The New York Times wrote "After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period". The article was written in 1987, before global warming became fashionable. AGW wasn’t a political issue in 1987 so the NYT article was an honest assessment of reality from an objective perspective. I’d give it a lot of weight.

A lot has happened since then, most of it bad science mixed with political hype. These same government scientists later "discovered" global warming in this historical data. A cynic would conclude this "discovery" met the policy needs of their grant money providers.:-)

2) Dr. Phil Jones, the originator of the global warming myth, admitted in a recent interview “there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995″. All other reputable sources agree with Dr. Jones.

So what do we have? No warming from 1895 to 1987, no warming from 1995 to 2010. We had at most a short (1987 to 1995) interval where temperatures may have gone up (<1degree F). Such a short interval of time is weather and not climate to any reasonable person.

Please show me the error of my ways since you have so graciously offered to give guidance.

Mariss