Graham rises to snarl at Hide, induces somnolence

Kennedy Graham, Greens MP

Kennedy Graham, another Greens MP who distorts environmental facts despite his immaculate steel-grey coiffure, says in the NBR that Rodney Hide’s depiction of the Greens (‘Zombie Greens chant false science mantra’) makes selective use of facts and conclusions. He should know, he’s an expert at it—for 16 years he was one of our diplomats.

In making the allegation against Rodney he commits the identical transgression, in failing to describe what Rodney has done. We have to take his word for it. But I won’t take his word for it; if he will not even describe the crime he names, I cannot believe him.

Mr Dr Graham claims to have read the Working Group I report in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). We’ll have to take his word for that, too.

But here is the core of Rodney’s criticism of the Greens: their abject failure to connect with the content of this bare-faced political manuscript that itself “makes selective use of facts and conclusions.”

Read what it says; interpret for yourself what the words mean; comment. Kennedy Graham offers, perhaps in innocence, an achingly apposite example of obfuscation from the WGI report. He says:

The report states, for example, that “It is very likely that increases in Arctic, Northern European, North American and southern hemisphere winter precipitation by the end of the century (2081-2100) will result from more precipitation in extra-tropical cyclones associated with enhanced extremes of storm-related precipitation [Ch. 14, p.5].”

I checked. The WGI report does indeed say that, on page five, just as Dr Graham reports. But has he read it?

Because this passage is saying that, by the end of the century, winter storm rain will increase because of increased rain from storms.

Please tell me I’m wrong — this does not enlighten us. The meaning and intent of the passage must be seriously questioned.

  • How will winter rain be increased by cyclones which occur during spring and summer?
  • If winter rain will increase, what will be the cause?
  • Is not “enhanced extremes of … precipitation” the same as “more precipitation”?
  • In the context of the statement, more precipitation is significant, but not less. The plural “extremes” is just exaggeration.
  • When explaining global warming, which apparently is supported by “mounting” and even “overwhelming” evidence, and should therefore be easy to explain, why obscure your message with these mysterious ambiguities?
  • Is there really any evidence of dangerous man-made global warming?

Our smart wee diplomat gives up one grain of good sense:

Little is achieved when politicians collide over science.

We agree! Hurrah! But wait: Hide and Graham collide, not over science, but over environmental philosophy—even, if we were honest, political philosophy, since they hold very different views of preferred structures and aims of society. Mr Dr Graham quickly abandons common ground, spoiling it again with:

best simply to acknowledge the primary findings in the report, which is available for anyone to read.

Best to acknowledge the findings, because it avoids thinking about them. Well done, Ken — that’s just what Rodney’s talking about! The primary findings were written by politicians, not scientists, and they are inconsistent with observations. Why should we accept them? Why do you accept them?

Finally, Dr Graham gives up trying to think about this difficult subject and simply regurgitates 250 words from the Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM). Boring as hell, and NOT from the scientific report, as he claims, but from the SPM, written by bureaucrats and others with agendas. Here’s the first one; I will describe how false it is.

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010. There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea-level, and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century (SPM, p.10).

First sentence: This is someone’s opinion, not a scientific observation. It acknowledges that nearly half the increase was natural. It fails to acknowledge that almost all the increase occurred between about 1980 and 2000. It doesn’t mention the lack of warming in 40 years of the 60 years they cite, which means that natural influences stronger than our puny carbon dioxide dominated the climate, while our CO2 was rising relentlessly.

Second sentence: This claims (let’s not be fooled by the “high confidence”) that the air can heat underlying water by radiation. This is impossible (try waving a heater at a cold bath) because hot air rises. How much is imparted from the air by radiation? Not much—forget it. It’s long been known that the temperature of the air is determined by the underlying land, water or ice. There is no mechanism whereby you can wave a heat source (other than the sun!) over a body of water to heat it (it’s why the element in your kettle sits beneath the water). There is no mechanism by which an atmospheric gas can warm the ocean significantly by radiation, especially considering the minuscule amounts of human emissions of CO2. This claim is non-science. It is anti-science. It is spreading ignorance under the guise of knowledge. It is returning our advanced, knowledgeable societies to their previous condition of superstition. This is the opposite of science. It is untruth.

In comments below, Huub Bakker kindly points out my mistake here. A new sentence is marked in bold. My apologies — my enthusiasm made me careless. You can of course heat water with a hot element held over it. That’s how solar heating works. Heating probably occurs when certain atmospheric gases release infra-red energy they’ve absorbed, but at a very small magnitude. I say ‘probably’ because I’ve heard contradictory descriptions of the GH gases — that they absorb and emit IR energy and that they don’t. Anyone know? I stand by my deprecation of significant oceanic warming by GHG. – RT

Dr Graham concludes piously: “The only thing that is important is that [we] work in the interests of our children’s generation,” as though the rest of us think it unimportant.

Mr Dr Graham appears to conclude that facts will not assist those interests. He reveals no facts about global warming and evinces no interest in discovering any. When he does, and discovers warming has been stopped for nearly 20 years (as long as it existed) and it was never at any stage unprecedented or unnatural, he will undoubtedly be best pleased.

Tell me I’m wrong.

h/t Barry Brill.

I’ve just read Rodney Hide’s comment at the NBR, which I’ll repost here shortly. Rodney addresses Kennedy Graham as ‘Dr’; that had missed my notice. I’m sorry if Dr Graham experienced any offence over this. – Richard Treadgold

UPDATE: 4 Nov 2013 6:35 pm NZST

IPCC contradicts Dr Graham, who,
chillingly, cites IPCC material
yet to be published—
signs of a conspiracy

Here is the Hon Rodney Hide’s comment at the NBR, demolishing Dr Graham’s lacklustre criticism of him (lightly edited for readability). – RT

Rodney Hide at the NBR

Dr Graham proves my point.

  1. My reporting of the IPCC conclusions that there has been no discernible increase in storms or droughts is correct. The IPCC report directly contradicts Dr Graham’s claim that this year’s NZ drought and storms were because of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
  2. His quote from the IPCC forecast of increased rain after the year 2081 hardly backs his claims. A projection of more rain in 68 years’ time doesn’t explain the 2013 drought and storms in New Zealand.
  3. The quote he uses is from the Final Draft Report that was made public on 30 September, three days after Dr Graham’s press statement in which he made his claims. He could hardly have been relying on that quote when making his claims.

I rest my case.

The Green’s practise zombie science, untroubled by facts and reason, and Dr Graham illustrates my point perfectly while claiming to counter it.

We agree. – RT

Views: 151

43 Thoughts on “Graham rises to snarl at Hide, induces somnolence

  1. Andy on 03/11/2013 at 4:49 pm said:

    The Summary for Policymakers also explicitly states that the range of estimates for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, assuming that such a concept is valid, lies between the range of 1.5 degrees Celcius and 4.5 degrees Celcius, with no central estimate or likelihood ascribed to any of these values.

    Previously, in AR4, the range was 2 to 4.5 degrees, with a central estimate of 3 degrees.
    Therefore, the IPCC are admitting that they know less about the key metric of the global warming theory that any time since the IPCC was formed.

    The current range covers scenarios from a mild and possibly beneficial warming, to a dangerous level of warming.

    How, then, we can extrapolate out 80 to 100 years and make detailed projections of drought and rainfall patterns, is beyond me.

    • Yes, and me and many others, including more and more in the mainstream media. This is wonderful. It’s important that the reason for the long-term predictions of disaster becomes widely known: since there’s patently no short or medium-term danger, because there’s simply been no warming, the only way to use AGW to keep the flock in thrall is to push the dragon’s arrival into the extreme future. We’re all right for now, but you just wait! It will be terrible! So now the tragedy is sitting about 80 to 100 years out. The more this is known, the less influence the false canons of the IPCC can have on policy and hence on our pockets.

  2. Robin Pittwood on 03/11/2013 at 5:25 pm said:

    “But wait: Hide and Graham collide, not over science, but over environmental philosophy”.

    Hardly a fair collision as I see it. As I recall Mr Hide has an environmental degree, and he can align himself with science, observation and common sense. The other poor fellow has to rely on word smithing other peoples’ words.

  3. Andy on 03/11/2013 at 6:12 pm said:

    Dr Graham has a good whine on the Greens blog too

    I get a few comments in but they are mostly ignored in the rush to make the most negative and depressing statement about the world.

  4. Huub Bakker on 03/11/2013 at 7:38 pm said:

    Sorry to disagree with you Richard, but a hot element held over water will, indeed, warm it up. Not as much or as effectively as placing it in the water but certainly more than nothing. This is, after all, exactly the same way that the Sun heats up the oceans and land. Whether the AIR can do the same thing is a bit more problematic since gases such as oxygen and nitrogen apparently cannot capture or emit infrared radiation.

    • Thanks, Huub. I thought the situation of radiative heating was one of degree (pardon the pun!). That is, oceanic warming can occur, but the amount of warming required is impossible in the minuscule radiation from the minuscule amounts of GH gases we emit. I was careless in carrying that idea through to the floating hot element, so thanks for the correction. Would phlogiston help?

    • Gary Kerkin on 04/11/2013 at 8:57 am said:

      Not phlogiston, Richard!! Although perhaps Humphrey Davy is presently rotating. The reason that the atmosphere will not significantly affect the temperature oft he ocean is that the heat content of the atmosphere is considerably less than that of the ocean. Not only vastly different masses, but the heat capacity of air is a couple of orders of magnitude less than that of water.

    • Gary, I’m very glad to have this confirmed! I’ve often thought the comparative heat capacities of air and water are important, but never saw it discussed and don’t have the knowledge to declare it important. Thanks.

    • Huub Bakker on 05/11/2013 at 10:21 pm said:

      The figures are; water specific heat is about 4200J/kg/K, air specific heat is about 1.2J/kg/K. The relative figure is therefore about 4000:1.

      The cynical side of me notes that ocean heat content is always given in Joules and not converted to temperature rise where it would look far less impressive.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/11/2013 at 8:56 am said:

      >”water specific heat is about 4200J/kg/K, air specific heat is about 1.2J/kg/K.”

      Heat capacity of ocean water: 3993 J/kg/K
      Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K

      Specific heat water – 4.187 kJ/kgK

      Specific heat air (20 C) – 1.005 kJ/kg.K ………[1.205 is density kg/m3]

      The relative figure is therefore about 4:1 not 4000:1 (I’ve made that mistake before too Huub).

      >”The cynical side of me notes that ocean heat content is always given in Joules”

      I’m OK with that Huub but I’d like to see the comparison of both temperature AND heat for both atmosphere and ocean consistently in the public domain so people get a handle on the relativity.

      Ocean heat in Joules is the sensible metric IMO because 0.06 C (or K) ocean warming doesn’t really convey what’s happening. It’s just that OHC is given as an anomaly (in Joules) which looks dramatic and is trotted out by Nuccitelli et al at Skeptical Science, The Guardian, and the likes, at every opportunity (they even have the equivalent in Hiroshima size bombs) e.g.

      Total Heat Content:

      Except that is NOT “total” heat content (i.e. they scientifically misrepresent), the rise shown is relatively small in the context of actual TOTAL OHC. Luboš Motl has a good post on this, the comparison is (roughly):

      2.6×10^23J. Change in top 2000m since 1968
      4.0×10^24J. Heat content top 2000m
      5.9×10^24J. Total ocean heat content

      From ‘Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase’:

      The numbers look similar but by my calculation (please check) the change in the top 2000m is 0.065 of the top 2000m and 0.044 of total.

      WUWT had a post on this too:

      ‘Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean’

      The graph at the top puts it all in perspective:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/11/2013 at 9:12 am said:

      Gary, RT, Huub. The fact remains that the IPCC provides no details (i.e. no science or thermodynamics, no citations) for their speculative anthropogenic “air-sea fluxes” (AR4/AR5). And they don’t tell us whether the mechanism is radiative or sensible heat transfer or some combination. I’ve gone into this in some detail here:

      Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

      I urge you all to have a read of that to see just how problematic the IPCC speculation is (if you don’t already know that is). They’ve offered nothing substantive for 25 years and 5 assessment reports.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 03/11/2013 at 8:44 pm said:

    >”Mr Graham claims to have read the Working Group I report….”

    Yeah, righto Kennedy. All 14 Chapters? Word for word? Here it is:

    Complete Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment 166MB

    Mind you, the quantity can be deceptive. For example, the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science report (CCR-II) is 1200 pages, 27.11 MB:

    CCR-II Chapter 3: Solar Forcing of Climate, is 102 pages and well over 100 citations. WGI does not have a corresponding chapter. The nearest thing is 4 pages and about half the number of CCR-II’s citations in Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.

    And of course Chapter 8 employs the usual IPCC circular reasoning of CO2-forced climate modeling so Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models will, hopefully, given he’s read it, be front of Kennedy Graham’s mind e.g. page 28 pdf:

    Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years


    Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009), (Liebmann et al., 2010)).. However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.


    From this “physical science” basis, the SPM derives “high confidence” in the human=influence-on-climate attribution. Presumably Kennedy Graham shares their confidence. I don’t.

    [BTW RT, nice post. 1 “Like”]

  6. SimonP on 03/11/2013 at 9:10 pm said:

    You’re wrong. Of course the atmosphere can heat the ocean. A study confirming this was conducted on the RV Tangaroa.

    • No, Simon, the study showed the cool skin might be warmed. That’s, what, as large as 1 mm? I think it’s smaller. Anyone believing the amount of heat energy in that “skin” (which doesn’t exist in turbulent water) might reverse the exodus of heat from the ocean needs help with their thinking. Err, I mean, is welcome to write the first-ever paper describing this magical effect. So far the only description is that distinctly tentative post at Real Climate. Also, please explain why earth scientists are issued basic texts about the atmosphere deriving most of its temperature from the underlying earth and water.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/11/2013 at 10:34 pm said:

      >“skin” (which doesn’t exist in turbulent water)

      Doesn’t exist around midday in the tropics either – when and where solar ocean heating is greatest and the ocean surface unperturbed for long periods (think doldrums).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/11/2013 at 9:56 pm said:

      >”Of course the atmosphere can heat the ocean. A study confirming this was conducted on the RV Tangaroa”

      Didn’t confirm anything of the sort as RT points out Simon. It merely isolates one component (LWdown) of the air-sea interface energy budget. The others being SWdown/up, LWup, sensible heat (Hs) and evaporation (Hl). And it didn’t demonstrate a long-term increasing trend in LWdown commensurate with aGHGs either.

      LWIR (3 – 16 micron wavelength) penetration of water surface was established in H&Q73 and corroborated since by other papers (the IPCC doesn’t defer to them of course):

      10 micron penetration by degraded radiation (as compared to SW) wont heat the ocean Simon, especially given the heat loss components LWup, HS, and Hl are greater than LWdown.

      Neither is that study (“single study syndrome” as SkS likes to put it wrt strawman sceptical arguments) the scientific basis of the IPCC’s speculative expectation of “air-sea fluxes” which hasn’t changed since AR4 BTW i.e. no progress by the IPCC after 25 years on that particular WAG phenomenon.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/11/2013 at 10:26 pm said:

      Much more on this here:

      Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?

      Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside [re the Real Climate/Peter Minnett musings]

      Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

      Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli

  7. flipper on 04/11/2013 at 12:11 pm said:

    Back in early October LAST year, The Outside the Beltway Group, sliced and diced Kennedy Graham.
    One OTB contributor from the UK, Rupert C. E. Wyndham, wrote to graham thus:

    **** ““Mr. Graham, [you say]:
    “Many people oppose any debate with Lord Monckton on the grounds that the intellectual merit of a discussion would suffer. I have no comment to make on that judgement.”

    “You have just commented. Let’s too get to the real reason for the Greens’ avoidance of open debate – er, with Monckton or anyone else. It is that, on the few occasions on which they have summoned up the courage to do so, they have invariably been eviscerated. I was at one such debate myself in London, involving such illuminati from your side as Prof. Mike Hulme. It was embarrassing albeit, from my perspective, an enjoyable example of shadenfreude.

    “Your comment relating to the ‘precautionary principle’ is illuminating. It has always seemed to me that the ‘principle’ is a rather sanctimonious contrivance that allows people of your claimed persuasion to continue to engage in the delightful task of self-preening without the need to temper this indulgence with any obligation to think. I make no comment on what might have been the condition of mankind had this foolishness prevailed throughout human history.

    “PS In passing, I use the word ‘claimed’ because, to be frank, I do not believe that it is intellectually possible to promote Green claims with honesty of purpose.”

    The arrogance of this man, collecting $200,000 pa as a list MP, doing nothing to actually earn a single dollar, is typical of all green (red melon) party representatives.

    Go get ’em, Richard.
    Better still, why not create some CO2, by sitting him on a bonfire tomorrow night. :-).

    • Yes, thanks, I remember the letter, I forgot it was addressed to Dr Graham. Thanks for your support. Methinks I shall stay on the trail of the Greens.

  8. John Shade on 04/11/2013 at 12:16 pm said:

    In his book ‘But Is It True?’, Aaron Wildavsky reports on several penetrating investigations by non-specialists into eco-scares. To the surprise of some of them, the answer to the titular questions in most cases was a resounding ‘No!’

    Specialists can also reach that conclusion on occasion. See ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’ for examples of that in the climate scare.

    Those who meekly go along with that scare, perhaps justifying their compliance by reference to the IPCC, are at risk of being widely seen, one day, as grossly irresponsible citizens.

  9. Andy on 04/11/2013 at 1:53 pm said:

    Is there anyone in the NZ Green Party that has had a job in the private or manufacturing sector? i.e not one that is in the political, diplomatic, or NGO/activist sphere?

    Or, even, a job that involves science or engineering skills?

    I get a bit concerned that these guys might form a part of the next government.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 05/11/2013 at 8:00 am said:

    Delicious irony. The RSS satellite monitoring system set up to “correct” UAH because it wasn’t returning the warming required of the AGW hypothesis is itself well on the way to disproving AGW ahead of UAH:

    ‘RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years’

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    November 4, 2013 at 6:44 am

    I interpret the “at least 17 years” statement differently. It is meaningless to look at temperature changes of shorter duration because of natural variability. Only after that period of time will the human effect be measurable. This is a slow motion fight that “denialists” are going to win one month at a time. We only had to wait 17 years. Problem is, living in a cold climate, I didn’t really want to be on the winning team.

    # # #

    According to Santer’s rationale, anthropogenic warming MUST now start to become discernible (again, supposedly).

  11. Andy on 05/11/2013 at 1:25 pm said:

    I think we are being a little optimistic about anyone in the Greens looking at any science with an open mind.

    Their frogblog is a stream of drivel about “sustainability”, and how we need to reduce the world’s population (no means is ever given on how this will be acheived)

    • Magoo on 05/11/2013 at 3:04 pm said:

      ‘and how we need to reduce the world’s population (no means is ever given on how this will be acheived)’

      Judging from history the marxist greens will line anyone with a brain and/or money up and shoot them a la Pol Pot. Either that or starve them to death like comrades Mao & Stalin. Or maybe some extermination camps similar to their socialist comrade Adolf.

      Take another look at the picture above of Kennedy to see if he fits the mould. I bet that wallet he’s stuffing into his jacket was just lifted from the person he’s sitting next to.

      The Greens and the environmental movement are nothing but a pack of shameless socialist liars and shouldn’t be trusted under any circumstances.

    • Mister Magoo, you are verging on notions of Agenda 21 Conspiracy nonsense. Except it is the antithesis of nonsense when one delves into it. Socialism demands a benevolent dictatorship, backed by a bloated bureaucracy, the likes we who value a free and unfettered way of life despise.

      I prefer the notion of “quiet enjoyment” of the planet, local and global. “Quiet enjoyment” is a legal term with respect to tenancy agreements. I view my residence on this planet in that same light. Quiet implies not harming or inconveniencing or polluting others’ enjoyment of same. That is my version of “sustainability”. Further, helping a fellow resident or two is crucial to my enjoyment. If others are suffering, it does not make it easy for me to live in an enjoyable way.

      Probably naiive – there is that stupid, short-sighted pervading aspect of human nature that is Greed, which founds a multitude of sin. I am as guilty as the next man, but at least I am awake to the short-sightedness of it. Greed knows no bounds. Whereas “quiet enjoyment” does.

      The Greens (a misnomer based on propaganda) demand environmental justice. To implement this pogrom program they firstly want to control all redneck capitalist innovative employment-creating land owners and their offspring. To control this population with a workable infrastructure they must tax, tax, tax. The thing they don’t seem to get is taxation collapses entrepreneurship. Maybe they do get that. Maybe they hate human innovation and the concept that there must be a better way. Maybe, like the Amish, they despise technology, and hope to see a world where everybody lives in the 1850’s, before industrialisation and carbon emissions. I don’t know what they imagine. I just want some quiet enjoyment, thank you.

      Anyhoo, I rant way above my pay grade. I am sure much more well-read persons would have more astute and better enunciated views.

    • You offer thoughtful reflections, Mike. I think you’re not too far from those well-read and well-enunciated views you aspire to (the ones to follow).

    • Thanks RT. I do aspire. The day you stop learning is the day you die.

    • Andy on 05/11/2013 at 10:36 pm said:

      Communism in its various forms killed close to 100 million people over the course of the 20th century.

      Hitler and the Nazis were very fond of green idealogy.

      So, yes, close I would say, Magoo

    • Andy on 06/11/2013 at 8:11 am said:

      Of course, it may be fanciful to suggest (a la Monckton) that the Greens will be herding us into concentration camps anytime soon.

      However, Green taxes are playing a large part in making energy unaffordable for many people, which leads to inevitable deaths (this is widely acknowledged in the UK)

      The Greens argument is that it is worth it, because the pain of killing a few thousand grannies is less than the pain that will be inflicted by climate catastrophe

      If the policies that they propose actually did something to address the supposed problem, and if the supposed problem actually exists and is a big problem, then they might have a point, I suppose.

    • Andy on 06/11/2013 at 11:18 am said:

      Whilst a lot of people tend to focus on the genocidal tendencies of Hitler and the Nazis, these rather endearing photos show that they were animal lovers too.

      Just like those nice Greenpeace and WWF people

  12. Alexander K on 12/11/2013 at 8:29 am said:

    The annual observance of Armistice Day is a salutory reminder of the carnage caused by those who embraced the many forms of Greenism. The well-meaning drongos of the Green persuasion here in NZ who suck up our tax dollars appear to have no idea of the enormous historic pool of evil that they draw their manifold stupidities from and the harm that would ensue if their lunatic policies and aspirations actually came to pass. The flotilla of anti-civilisation protesters who are heading for Taranaki will, no doubt, claim that they will only break laws if they deem it necessary, according to what what they refer to as their conscience but is nothing more than misinformed arrogance. As a late friend once said, the pooling of ignorance is rarely beneficial!
    I take enormous heart from the current Australian government’s position re the UN’s climate con, ie stop trying to impose socialism disguised as environmentalism..

    • Well said Alexander. Here’s an example of “pooling of ignorance”:
      Environmental group Greenpeace projected messages on six Polish coal-fired power plants on Sunday saying: “Climate change starts here!” and “Storms start here!”.

    • Andy on 12/11/2013 at 6:22 pm said:

      The TV3 article states

      Global average temperatures have risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution and are set to exceed 2C – a target ceiling agreed at a previous UN summit – on current trends, despite a hiatus in the pace of warming so far this century.

      That’ll upset the hiatus deniers then.

  13. Alexander K on 12/11/2013 at 4:56 pm said:

    Makes one wonder what the collective Green noun for ‘intelligence’ could possibly be!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation