Aaron Alpe: Climate change spurring wildfires

Advertisement

As a U.S. Forest Service firefighter working across the American West for more than a decade, I am ready to focus on preventing fires as much as putting my life on the line to put them out.

I’ve worked on hotshot crews and as a smokejumper — a firefighter that parachutes from airplanes into fires. I’ve worked on fires of every level of complexity, from small fires that grow to an acre or two that are extinguished in a few hours ­— to 400,000-acre fires that burn until winter arrives.

The truth is fires in the West are increasing markedly in their complexity, intensity and number. Some of this increase can be attributed to the aftereffects of a well-intentioned — but overly aggressive — Forest Service policy that called for the immediate suppression of all fires, even though fire is a natural part of the ecosystem and our forests have evolved in relationship to it. By immediately suppressing all fires, forests became overburdened with excessive fuel, which has led to more intense fires today as a result.

But this does not explain the excessive drought, rising temperatures and extreme weather that have increased fire. These trends are caused by climate change.

Just last week, the White House released the National Climate Assessment — a lengthy report that confirms what many firefighters know firsthand: Climate change has increased wildfires across the West.

And according to a Harvard University study, wildfires will be far more frequent, intense and affect more territory, both habited and open space.

By 2050:

■ the area burned by fires will double;

■ large fires will triple; and

■ the fire season will dominate half the calendar year.

From a firefighter’s point of view, these are terrifying figures.

I know firsthand the massive amount of manpower and equipment required to suppress fires. It is difficult to fathom the costs and the dangers of fire suppression in a future where two times the amount of land will burn. These risks will only increase due to the fact that more and more people are living in the wildland-urban interface.

Climate change no longer is a fringe issue, no longer just the environmentalists from Boulder raising the alarm. It is an issue of deep concern to many, like myself, who live and work in our forests.

On the eve of another fire season in Colorado, it’s time our elected officials start taking it seriously and create meaningful policies that will help us save Coloradans’ homes and lands from destructive wildfire.

Aaron Alpe is a resident of Steamboat Springs.

Comments

Harvey Lyon 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I seem to remember some massive fires in the past, especially CA. And there was the one in Yellowstone that took out a third of the Park, mid-80's.......some 30 years ago.

Thank you for your service but these fires are really not anything new. And often all the hoopla is because we've built homes and stuff in fire prone areas.

Redwood cones don't even open and start to grow until there's been a good hot fire. I believe that says a lot about the long term history of forest fires.

And if it wasn't for climate change Manhatten would still be under 2 miles of ice.

3

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 2 weeks ago

So it's better to ignore/deny and do nothing to mitigate CO2 greenhouse gas emissions that 95% of the worlds scientists say are vastly contributing to our warming trends/climate change. Now that's a logic we can all live with, or not!

Never in my lifetime have the wishes and ignorance of the minority so imperiled and taken precedent over those of the majority.

0

mark hartless 6 months, 2 weeks ago

That's true, Neil. The last time it happened was when 95% of scientists and world population KNEW the world was flat and the 5% minority "took precedent" over them, sailed across a flat ocean full of sea-monsters, and proved the 95% WRONG. Did ya read Rules for Radicals yet??

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

NEIL, Neil, Neil Maybe this will be of interest to you. Well, the climate Mafia wasn’t going to let Bengtsson defect, and, to mix metaphors, the Climate Inquisition went into overdrive. Today, Bengtsson transmitted his resignation from the GWPF, describing the intense pressure the intolerant climate establishment exerted on him to recant over the last 48 hours:

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

The Next Climate Scandal? Times Cover copyThe lead story in The Times of London today declares “Scientists in Cover Up of ‘Damaging’ Climate View.” The Times thinks the story, concerning peer reviewers suppressing a scientific paper purely for political reasons, may amount to the next “Climategate,” on par with the scandal of the leaked emails back in 2009. This may be media hype, but at the very least it is another clear signal of the kind of enforced climate conformism we noted here on Wednesday, especially since it involves Lennart Bengtsson. The complete story is behind a paywall, but we’ve managed to get more of the copy of Ben Webster’s story from Benny Peiser:

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

2

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

"continued"

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.

Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.

The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”. The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics. . .

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”

The issue of climate sensitivity is one of the keys to this entire matter, and the Climatistas are very sensitive about the subject. The paper in question here, which will surely see the light of day somewhere, would be only the latest of several recent papers, some of them published in the peer-reviewed literature, that call into serious question the more extreme forecasts of climate response to greenhouse gases. We reported on some of these papers here and here.

0

rhys jones 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't get out of town much -- can't afford it, and my work is a trip anyway -- but the last time I went to Denver, couple of years, I was appalled at the quantity of standing dead timber: Miles and miles of ugly gray trees, the red having fallen off -- that forest is DEAD. The pungent fragrance of a healthy pine forest I remember as a child, is largely gone from Colorado.

What that forest really needs is a fire, and a big one. Lodgepole cones too won't pop open until they realize great heat. The aspens will move in short-term, to be replaced by lodgepoles in good time. Yellowstone sets a good example, where the lodgepoles are recovering nicely, although nobody alive today will see those forests like I did as a kid, 80-foot pines growing right next to the road, which was a virtual tunnel between them. It'll take a whole human lifetime for those to come back like they were, where they'll stand for a while, then burn again.

Reminding me of a premise for a best-seller or box-office hit: Imagine the mountain town surrounded by forest, along the lines of Telluride (kicking up the film budget, but God it'll be fun!!) and the Big One strikes; fires spontaneously burst out, in all directions, the residents can't get out -- and they SUFFOCATE, because the fire consumed all the oxygen!!

What a way to go, eh?

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I guess someone needs to take Steve Mendels place. Well done Dan!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil, That's why I enjoy your posts. No substance, just half-hearted attempts at insults and lefty talking points.

3

rhys jones 6 months, 2 weeks ago

And now the troll emerges: I've got a minute, and I love to play devil's advocate...

There is a faction within the scientific community which argues that the Earth is actually entering a cooling cycle, its onset assisted by the "greenhouse gases" which reduce the amount of sunlight which penetrates. They cite some glaciers actually growing in size, one as nearby as Rocky Mountain National Park.

Ground thus laid... now I am reminded of other natural disasters which actually occurred in our own State, in Gunnison County, back in the late-1800's mining days...

Seems the townfolk in Woodstock cut all the trees down on the adjacent hillside, conveniently rolling them down the hill to make railroad ties and houses... then -- you guessed it -- in a snowy winter, the snow on the hillside, having no obstacles, slid down and buried the town under 30 feet of snow... something similar happened at Glenwood, and Anthracite, where six miners were killed but some buildings remain...

What a way to go, eh?

And while I generally pooh-pooh the climate-change alarmists, writing it off as typical seasonal variation and a natural warming trend anyway -- I must admit, we don't get the bitter-cold winters we used to, six weeks continuous, below zero, thirty and forty below for a week straight or more; it wasn't that long ago, in the stretch of time...

0

john bailey 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Neil at it again ? jeez.... agreed Rhys , what we need is a good ol fashion forest fire and let the thing burn......you must have gone thru Grand Lake , no ? what a mess that place is , but in due time it all comes back. humans are so impatient.....Dan , you forgot to link up like Steve did , it drives those lefties batty..... HA , hula hula....

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey John, I agree it is fun to have Neil show up from time to time

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Rhys, I remember those days. It seemed in Minnesota it would go below zero early January and stay there for 2 weeks or so and yet according to records kept, the longest stretch while i lived in MN was 157 consecutive hours below zero so maybe things are never as bad (or good) as we remember them. (darn brain cell killing whiskey) Also according to records this past winter in Twin Cities was greatest number of below zero lows in past 32 years. Harkens back to the days we were told to put on a sweater. I am still doing it. Climate does change. No doubt about it.

0

rhys jones 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Yeah Dan I remember going to college in Gunnison, a noted cold spot, back in the '80's, when full-month stretches below zero occurred annually, nights 40 below (at which point F and C agree, quite entertaining on the bank sign). I remember it getting up to 4 degrees once, and it felt like Spring!! They wouldn't let us have Wind Chill, lest we all freeze to death.

Ironically the coldest I've ever seen -- and I've lived in South Dakota and Minnesota too -- was right here, '87 or '88 I'm thinking... back then Channel 10 was the local cable channel with plain posterboard ads, and the crawl below, reflecting time and temperature.

When it got down to 56 below one night, my friend and I went to the outdoor hot tub at Walton Village, where I lived -- yes, it was a nippy walk, for a hundred yards or so.

The steam rising from the tub, almost instantly crystallized, to fall back on us as snow... that was pretty cool. Pun intended.

0

Scott Wedel 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Scientific consensus that heat trapping gases in the atmosphere that capture infrared radiation otherwise destined for space has existed for over 100 years since the original black body calculations of an earth that didn't have an atmosphere that trapped IR were made.

The difference is about 100 degrees which is too big to be ignored. That IR escaping to space is a cooling effect is obvious in the difference in how it cools down quickly on a clear night and much slower on a cloudy night.

Global warming as a general climatic condition started appearing in the scientific literature in the early 60s when they starting noticing the trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Global climate change hit the proverbial fan when they got computers powerful enough to start running models that made predictions of the future. Then some of the predictions of future climates got the attention of the media and the public. Those projected effects are much more serious than currently observed effects. There has been active scientific debate over the accuracy of various computer models.

As was noted by the original creators of mathematical Chaos Theory, the weather and hence climate is significantly affected by feedback loops. So any error in starting conditions or in the modelling are amplified over time. Thus, the accuracy of any computer models can be questioned. But humans increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will affect weather and climate is the result of basic physics that the atmosphere is capturing more IR and not letting it escape to space.

2

mark hartless 6 months, 2 weeks ago

The writer says: "Some of this increase can be attributed to the aftereffects of a well-intentioned — but overly aggressive — Forest Service policy..." Yet how does he know that implementing an assault on "climate change" isn't just as big of a mistake?

He goes on to say: "It is difficult to fathom the costs and the dangers of fire suppression in a future where two times the amount of land will burn." His concern about the ramifications of increasing fires is understandable, but he and many others seem to give little consideration to the costs and dangers of setting out to slay the climate change dragon with about as much information as the USFS had when it implemented the admittedly disasterous fire policies of yesteryear.

He concludes by stating: "...it’s time our elected officials start taking it seriously and create meaningful policies that will help us save Coloradans’ homes and lands from destructive wildfire..." What he fails to disclose here is that when politicians set about "creating meaningful policies" they always do so at the expense of those same Coloradans individual liberties.

Harvey makes a good point that the Yellowstone fires were decades ago; not recently.

0

Ben Tiffany 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Rhys, I remember that bitter cold (definitely in the mid to late 80's,perhaps '86?) and that was when the record for coldest recorded temperature in Colorado history occurred; -61 degrees in Maybell. Don't remember if that record has since been broken. I would be happy to never see a temperature that cold ever again.

0

Thomss Steele 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Your assumption that politicians can change the naturally occurring warming and cooling of our planet is naive. Thank you for your service but keep your idiotic ideas to yourself.

0

mark hartless 6 months, 1 week ago

There were record low temps recorded yesterday in Aberdeen SD, Jonesborough AR, and Kansas City.

Last year was also a record year for hurricanes; not for hjigh intensity or high number of storms as the experts had predicted. Rather it was a record of lowest number and intensity of them...

0

Fred Duckels 6 months, 1 week ago

The AGW theory might be correct, I don't know but it is surrounded by the biggest consortium of truth stretchers in history. This makes it difficult to ascertain the truth and totally shames the scientific community for such a debacle.

0

Fred Duckels 6 months, 1 week ago

The only reason for a scientist to be drug into politics like this is this is the money. What would a university say if the scientist refused a grant on principal? Never going to happen, so we have scientists resorting to prostitution.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Scott, Regards your post above about increasing CO2. Thought you might find this interesting.

Neil I have posted the link cuz I know how much you miss Mendell's links.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/checking-the-nca-report-against-real-data-reveals-major-discrepancies/

May 13, 2014 by Don J. Easterbrook Guest essay by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. 1. NCA assertion: “The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution.”

Facts: This percentage increase means nothing. Human CO2 emissions didn’t begin to rise significantly until after 1945 at the end of WWII, so no warming prior to that can be attributed to CO2. The CO2 composition of the atmosphere then was about 0.030 %. The CO2 composition of the atmosphere recently reached 0.04%, a total increase of only 0.010% since ~1950. But the period of ‘global warming didn’t begin until 1978 when CO2 made up 0.034% of the atmospheric, so that’s an increase of only 0.006%. ’ That’s about as close to nothing as you can get, and even if you double or triple it, you still have close to nothing!

  1. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”

Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

0

rhys jones 6 months, 1 week ago

Here's a computer acronym for you: GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Hey Neil, Could I ask a favor of you. Could you give me the source you used to back up your statement that 95% of scientists say that co2 greenhouse gas emissions are vastly contributing to warming/climate change. It's ok if it is a link. I won't mock you for co-opting Steve Mendell's modus operandi as you did me. (-; Thanks and I hope you had a great weekend.

0

rhys jones 6 months, 1 week ago

Hey Dan -- Remember the anti-pot ladies -- "Dr." Victory, and what was the other one's name? Whatever became of those solid community members, pillars of society? Does anyone actually know those people? Why haven't we heard a peep since? Were they outside agitators, paid by big pharm? I would ask did they really exist, except I saw one at a county commisioners charade once. Scary.

Kinda like our departed Steve. Was he real? Does he even live here? Who was the mystery, behind that moniker? I sorta miss him, much as I hate to admit.

0

jerry carlton 6 months, 1 week ago

Rhys I knew both of these ladies and they do exist and one still lives here. I do not know if Dr. Victory still lives here but I do know the other lady lives here as I saw her at church last Sunday. She is a very nice single mother raising two daughters. They and I just happen to disagree with you and the majority on pot but that does not make us bad people. Did you see the recent explosion in Manitou Springs making hash oil and the guy who shot and killed his wife while on pot and prescription drugs? Easy to blame the prescription drugs, maybe he was not using enough pot? Pot, alcohol, prescription drugs, hard drugs, gambling, and virtually all addiction are destructive. Rockies just won! Got to keep winning to keep up with San Fran.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Rhys, don't remember the anti pot ladies. Only been here full time 2 years and have not really followed the evolution of pot acceptance. Pot never my thing. Have friends that think it's great so good on em. Each to their own. I kind of like my pre dinner bourbon and a nice red wine with dinner. Unfortunately no longer a good idea in town so only at home. One does wonder who called foul on Steve. Would be nice if they fessed up. With Cuddy, Morneau and Hawkins (all ex Twins) my team From the Senior Circuit has to be the Rockies. My Twins will struggle again this year and the Tigers look pretty good even with out that smoking Jim Leyland in charge.

0

rhys jones 6 months, 1 week ago

I'm happy to learn the other lady was legit, but "Dr." Victory always made me suspicious. She appears out of nowhere, has ties to big pharm, is very vocal, then disapears when it's over. Many people are legally entitled to call themselves Doctor -- my English prof demanded it, and my own grandmother could have, but didn't (math) -- while in my book, if you don't treat patients, you don't rate the title. Yet Victory flaunted it as if it lent credibility.

Hey, that Morneau ain't too bad!! Walk-off homer in the 10th... Maybe the Rocks didn't lose too much on first with the retirement of Todd, but I sure miss that glove on the right hand, adding range... but like Todd, he can HIT!! This Rockies team is FUN!! And they'll have a chance to make up a lot of ground on the Giants this week. Stay tuned!!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Don't you worry. Morneau is pretty good with the glove and his big bat has to love 5280 feet above sea level

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 1 week ago

Here you go Dan, have at it. I was wrong I admit it, it was not 95% of scientists it is actually 97% but hey what do they know, they could have been cherry picked right? And the source NASA, what would you expect from a bunch of government rocket scientists? Cheers!

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

So 97% of scientists believe in climate change. So do I. Whats wrong with the other 3%. Hope fully you are willing to read this article. It does not fit your lefty ideology so you will probably dismiss it. It's long and won't fit in one post so hang in there. Don't you just hate it when somebody actually does research instead of just posting talking points. POSTED ON MAY 18, 2014 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN CLIMATE BREAKING: THE “97 PERCENT CLIMATE CONSENSUS” CANARD TV watchers will recall the familiar advertising trope of yesteryear in which we were told “4 out of 5 dentists [or doctors] recommend” using fluoride toothpaste, aspirin for headaches, or some such. We were always left to wonder whether that fifth doctor was a moron or something, never pausing to consider that the fifth doctor might well recommend the same thing, but emphasize something else first (like flossing perhaps, or Tylenol instead of aspirin because of sensitive stomachs, etc). But Archie Bunker was coming back on the air in 30 seconds, so most of us didn’t follow up on these puzzles.

Likewise we ought to wonder about the favorite cliché of the Climatistas these days—that “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change.” As I’ve written before, the only real surprise is that the number isn’t 100 percent. There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasn’t changed or won’t change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon. The leading so-called “skeptics—like MIT’s Richard Lindzen or Cato’s Patrick Michaels or NASA’s John Christy or Roy Spencer—would be included in the 97 percent figure. I’m guessing the outlying 3 percent are actually just anomalies of an arbitrary classification scheme (more on this in a moment) that serve the same point as a magician’s misdirection—to get you to buy an illusion. In this case, the illusion is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in thinking we’re on the brink of catastrophe unless we hand our car keys over to Al Gore

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

No one can possibly keep up with the flood of scientific articles published on climate-related topics these days (we’re spending way too much on climate research right now, but that’s a topic for another day), so it is ridiculous to offer sweeping generalizations like this about the character of the scientific literature. I keep up with a fair amount of it in Nature, Science, and a couple of the other main journals, and what is quite obvious is that most climate-related articles are about specific aspects of climate, such as observed changed in localized ecosystems, measurement refinements (like ocean temperatures, etc), energy use and projections, and large data analysis. Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming, and fewer still embrace giving the car keys over to Al Gore. Only a handful deal with modeling of future climate change, and this is where the debate over climate sensitivity and the severe limitations of the models (especially as relates to clouds) is quite lively and—dare I say it—unsettled. (Just read the IPCC Working Group I chapter on climate models if you don’t believe me.) The “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change” cliché is an appalling abuse of science, and a bad faith attempt to marginalize anyone who dissents from the party line that we need to hand our car keys over to Al Gore. The tacit message is: if you dissent from the party line, you must be in that 3 percent who think you shouldn’t brush your teeth, take painkillers for headches, etc.

Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]

Pause here and note that it is odd to see that some folks apparently haven’t gotten the memo that you’re not supposed to call it “global warming”—“climate change” is the term of art now. Anyway, to continue, read this slowly and carefully

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Hey Neil, it's almost done - stay with me OK -you can do it. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Let’s translate: Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus. Again—the only mystery here is that the number isn’t 100 percent. Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election. For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called named Kim Jong Il.

The plot thickens. Prof. Cook refused to share his data with anyone. Shades of the East Anglia mob and their tree ring data. But also like the East Anglia mob, someone at the University of Queenland left the data in the ether of the internet, and blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. Then the predictable thing happened: the University of Queenland claims that the data was hacked, and sent Shollenbeger a cease-and-desist letter. That just speaks lots of confidence and transparency, doesn’t it?

The irrepressible Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit has more, including a link to the inevitable Hitler parody video. But just remember this: 4 out of 5 claims by the Climatistas are self-serving political tommyrot. (And more here from The Daily Caller.)

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Neil, I apologize for not just providing a link, but I know how much you dislike that

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 1 week ago

Whoa, your fingers must be tired. Commendable effort though and I agree, posting a link is so much easier.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Hey Neil, No worries. Any thing I can do to refute your lefty talking points is worth it. Cheers

0

mark hartless 6 months, 1 week ago

Expecting transparency from the elite is like expecting open-mindedness from their followers, Dan. It ain't ever gonna happen. The "bishops" in the Church of the Holy Environment have the "congregation" convinced, committed and on the march to propogate their "faith" and they ain't ever gonna change.

How's that Alinsky book reading going, Neil??? Fing the Lucifer dedication yet??

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 1 week ago

Who is the demon here Mark?

Alinsky died at the age of 63 of a sudden, massive heart attack in 1972, on a street corner in Carmel, California. Two months previously, he had discussed life after death in his interview with Playboy:[4]

ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell. PLAYBOY: Why? ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there. PLAYBOY: Why them? ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

0

Karl Koehler 6 months, 1 week ago

The NCA is a political document produced by political operatives for political purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.

0

mark hartless 6 months, 1 week ago

Apparently Alinsky is the demon now, Neil. That was my point. Because two of his most influential and well known students are Obama and Hillary.

When you intimate that others who are the polar opposite of Barrack should prepare to "say hello to Lucifer for us..." you prove that you do not know what road Obama is on.

But read closer into the Alinsky quote you provided: "...once I get into Hell, I'll start organizing..."

This is where so many of you on the left fail to rec ognize the nature of those to whom you lend support. Alinsky is basically saying that, even though he got to go to the place of HIS choosing, he would still act like a two-bit malcontent; start stirring up and inflaming people to incite division and strife. (never mind that many of those he'd be helping and using are the monsters/ Hitlers of history- he'd gladly band together with them so long as it got him some power)

All these "community organizers" like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, et al, know how to do is foment division, strife, hatred and anger between people; and they use dupes like yourself with no clue of their background or intent in order to do it.

Obama, the "community organizer"- in chief IS, and will ALWAYS BE a divider, because he learned from the master divider who promised that even in Hell, the place of HIS OWN CHOOSING he wouldn't stop the divisive rhetoric.

You see, Neil... Obama and Alinsky share a common characteristic with Lucifer. They don't want to HELP; they want to RULE.

Lucifer, once second only to God Almighty, couldn't be content with being the second most powerful being in the universe . Nope, he wanted to run things himself so desperately that he stated "I'd rather REIGN in Hell than SERVE in Heaven.

That is where we are with Obama today; a man who does not care how many people hate his guts, just so long as people hate EACH OTHER in the process.

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 1 week ago

What a tirade. Most sensible people realize that it's the racist of this country that in your words "Hate Obama's Guts". Haters keep on hating and you say that Obama is the divider, what a rant. Maybe you should move to the South where you can revel in your tradition of hating and surround yourself with like minded haters. Although there are plenty to go around right here in CO which gets back to the phrase "angry, old, white dude". Thanks for proving my point.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

I am thinking that thru history most every president (even Lincoln) had a group that "hated his guts". We know that there were people that hated Bush's guts, even called him a "hitler" As every previous president was an "angry, old, white dude" those who "hated his guts" were never called racist so why now is it that some one who "hates Obama's guts" is considered a racist. (and yes I do realize that some people who "hate" him happen to be racist) Because that's a lefty talking point. Why does it seem to boil down to race from the lefts perspective so much of the time. So if Hillary decides to run will it be all sexist all the time. Would be fun if Condi Rice ran to watch the liberals choke on their own sexist and racist canards.

0

jerry carlton 6 months, 1 week ago

While Neil would never disparage a Black, a Hispanic, an Asian, or none of the above, he has no problem with mocking people that are elderly and white. Of course the true reason he is mocking them is because they are conservative. Neil is the perfect example of political correctness run amok in this country. I voted for Obama his first term. I did not vote for him a second time because I thought he did a poor job. What is sensible in Neil's world is not sensible in an elderly conservatives world. We grew up when there was prayer in schools, when abortion {AKA killing an unborn child in it's mothers womb} was not a common means of birth control, when the only large scale drug abuse was being an alcoholic, when the Federal debt was not totally out of control, when MMJ was not legal, when gay marriage was not even discussed. Of course liberals think these are all good things. Neil do you disparage "angry, old, white dudes" because they are angry, old, or white, or all of the above?

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 months, 1 week ago

Like wise Jerry, thanks for proving my point. And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of "The Church" which is where so much hatred for all things different began. And before you get started on how me and my secular kind are the reason this country has lost its place, I am proud to admit that I have been a "Recovering Catholic" like so many others, for over forty years and still manage to know right from wrong as well as the meaning of virtue. That's it for me on this subject and this board, nothing but a negative waste of energy. Don't know what took me so long. Chow!

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 1 week ago

Jerry, As I had mentioned to you before, all Neil has is lefty talking points and attempts to insult those who disagree with him. It is amusing in a sad sort of way.

0

mark hartless 6 months, 1 week ago

Any way you slice it Neil, you support a man who studied under the guy who said that he'd like to go to Hell and that once he got there he would start strirring the puddin right away. The man who dedicated his master work to Lucifer.

THAT'S who you support, Mr "recovering catholic".

I grew up in the south. I once heard a black man say that MATH tests were racist... Thats right MATH tests. When you can believe that math is somehow racist then you can see racism anywhere that's the least bit uncomfortable to your world view. Hence folks like Neil.

0

jerry carlton 6 months, 1 week ago

We will miss you Neil. I will probably have to type less now which is a good thing..

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.