Science? You can't handle the Science!

The climate is aware of the swamp in which the Myron Ebell swims. We've wasted time reading certain blog postings, that at least have links to the claims they are referencing, usually four year old articles by the BBC with quotes taken out of context. This reality-challenged ruminant is obviously aware of all the pages of scary global warming reports he had to skim through to find a quote like:

Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, say they have found "strong evidence" that the ice sheet in the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year.

while ignoring the following paragraphs in the same report:

He said the research only covered a relatively small area, over a short period of time and it was possible that what they were detecting was a minor fluctuation.

He pointed out that there were other areas in West Antarctica where the ice was thinning significantly, such as the Pine Island Glacier and the Thwaites Glacier.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times you use the word "Global" to these brain-suicides, they still point at the next snowflake to fall from the sky, even if it's the last snowflake in the world, and rant that it disproves everything.

Apparently, there hasn't been enough scientific research done yet to be convincing, although some might argue that there has already been too much because bad apples get published that Myron and his friends to keep citing and lying are representative. Actually, it's obvious not enough has been published to fit their views, otherwise why would they need to cite a pulp science fiction novel:

"In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims."

It wouldn't surprise us if the readers of Mr "libertarianleanings"
Blogger never followed his links. They all point to senile mugshots of Ronald Reagan, for all they care. This blogger did at least point to one of his earlier posts where he took the scientists to task for their funny numbers:

Do the arithmetic. Carbon dioxide concentration comes out to be .03723% of the troposphere, while methane represents .0001843%. The combined estimated increase in these two gases represents .0093413% of the total atmosphere... We're being asked to conclude that these trace gases in Earth's atmospheric blanket have some magical impact on its insulating qualities, while nitrogen, which makes up 78% of the atmosphere, and oxygen, which makes up 21% of the atmosphere have little bearing. Does this make any sense? Take a good look at the wording in this paragraph [from a scientific article]...

"Despite their relative scarcity, the most important trace gases in the Earth's atmosphere are the greenhouse gases... Despite being present in only 370 parts per million by volume of air, carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases help to keep the Earth 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be without an atmosphere."

Notice the part about how the "greenhouse gases help to keep the Earth 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be without an atmosphere." They know they're pushing a load of crap.

And with that, he decided the earth was flat. While he is not in danger of falling off the planet, he does still have to live on it, and going around deluding himself and others about what is going on now because it would otherwise involve choosing how to change his life today, rather than being forced to change it later by far more painful future events is a remarkably stupid game plan. This libertarianism thought pattern has always been nihilist.

By the way, the average temperature of the moon is -46 degrees C. Would you like to buy it? It's yours. Now go and live on it.

Not Goodenough!

CNSNews.com is still encouraging Myron Ebell to exist by publishing his words without ridicule or opposing creditable fact. This has got to stop.

As usual, reporters mistake the catastrophic failure of the Kyoto treaty as a failure of the need to do something. They do not see it as a tragedy similar to, say, the failure of the hydraulic braking system on a freight train as it barrels down the tracks into a city. You want your goods to come into the city as fast as possible; therefore why would you ever want to slow the train down, says Ebell who has been working so hard to suck out the brake fluid with his bare lips his gums are scabby.

"Even as they damage their economies with limits on energy use, emissions continue to go up," croaked Myron Ebell. "The sooner that Kyoto's supporters realize that it's a dead end, the better off the world will be."

We even get a pointless quote fellow CEI english potato Iain Murray who said the international community should drop Kyoto and work on alternatives -- like the Asia-Pacific partnership -- "that will build resiliency and deploy new energy technologies."

So... why can't you bother to ask what those "New Technologies" are, Mr Reporter Goodenough? We like technology, and you filled your article full of numbers and figures right down to this point, and then you cease all analysis when someone says "New Technologies". What fergod's sake are they? Flying saucers? Perpetual motion machines? Does he believe there is a pill that can turn gasoline into water? Shouldn't he really only be interviewed by All-lies.com? After all, after helping to privatize the railways in Britain, he can only be proud of the train crashes that happened year on year as they skimmed money out and didn't fix the tracks until it all fell apart. You don't need to read his lies to revel in his blind faith that "capitalism actually encourages long-term thinking because its institutions ascribe value based on future prospects."

It only just looks like a poker game where the winners cash out at the right moment and leave town. But you cannot cash out of Planet Earth, my friends. Mr Ebell, Mr Murray, and Mr Goodenough are going to be staying right here where they will die with the rest of us multi-cellular organisms breathing the same air and drinking the same water. Thanks friends.

4200 other words

Ocassionally President Bush's handlers keep people on their toes by inserting the occasional truth into one it his speeches. "America is addicted to oil," the President said in his speech. Myron Ebell was incensed.

"With these five words in his State of the Union speech," Myron whined, "President George W. Bush confounded steadfast allies on energy policy and emboldened his bitterest enemies. Political sages often counsel paying more attention to deeds than to words, but in this case, the President’s irresponsible rhetoric is likely to have far more damaging consequences than the minor policy changes he went on to recommend."

That article written by Myron can be found in Suicidal Species Online, a vanity publication for conservative bananas. This is the place where his words belong.

Unfortunately, a week later, Andrea James, business reporter for an Alabama news organization conflagrated her standards by filling in a few inches in her Natural gas shortage article with an interviewette from Myron where he was pitching for the chemicals industry.

"With U.S. prices of gas two or three times that in other countries, it is impossible for American chemical producers to compete," Ebell said. "Many have already moved their production overseas, and I expect most of the remaining producers are in the process of doing so."

I don't and he probably doesn't know what countries he's talking about. If there are such countries they're probably ones which have not yet burnt through their entire gas reserves for a quick buck, like the USA and the UK, and whom now have to rely on the international market or imperial colonies

Wherever they are, Myron is sure it will destroy your livelihood. Decline in the chemicals industry could mean hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, Ebell said.

Luckily, Ms Andrea James interviewed Michael Zenker who is not an professional liar. In 2000, U.S. and Canadian gas supplies peaked and it caught the country by surprise, Zenker said. For the first time ever... a surge in drilling did not result in more supply. Today, gas drilling is at a record high, but production is relatively flat.

In a CNN interview in 2003, he also said: In fact technology has been helping by bringing a lot of the smaller resources to market much more rapidly. We have been able to get access to locations where there's natural gas domestically where we hadn't been able to do that before.

This is because the POOP.

Clearly, the reporter didn't read this, or she wouldn't have published Myron's next lie (and for good measure deleted this crackpot from the record entirely) when he said: "The industry has consistently underestimated the magnitude and rate that potential new fields were being declared off-limits by the Congress, the president, and the federal land agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management."

As usual, the obvious follow-up questions should be: "What fields? What countries? Where? Can you prove it or are you making stuff up as usual out of your hot deluded brain again, Ebell?"

The oil and gas crises have been predicted. The Climate change disasters have been predicted. It's all going to happen if we take no measures to avert it. And if we don't then we must be a suicidal species.

Peter Stoney sez more jobs and smog

This week's man in the climate is, like Myron Ebell, a neo-liberal rent-a-mouth capable of generating neat horseflop at the drop of a dime.

I mean, a man who can say, on the question of port expansion, that "Liverpool would lose its competitive edge behind European ports like Rotterdam and Antwerp" as though the mass importers of Chinese products are going to shop around for a port in a different country, and then tele-port their goods back into Britain, has got to be nuts. Maybe those ports in Antwerp or San Francisco are saying the same about Liverpool, that they have to clear more land, breathe more smoke and diesel, drive more trucks at all hours of the day, all because Liverpool is going to expand. Let's say we don't do it -- all together.

Let's say we must eradicate this question, like a good little neo-con researcher who knows how to take the situation as it stands, and then say the exact opposite. Always throwing in some bogus arithmetic whenever possible.

The fact is the port owners care about two things: A. Money, and B. nothing else. They see their job as endeavouring to expand their capital whilst creating as few jobs as possible, paying as little as possible for them, and ignoring as much pollution as possible. As the narrow, conventional corporate business that they are, any positive impact they make on the local community is purely accidental and happens in spite of their best efforts to squeeze every brass shilling out of the operation. Because this is unpopular, and because only democratic forces can stop this, they pay people to lie for them for the purpose of subverting the public interest.

Reporters should never interview crackpots like this. They should never permit them to dismiss tangible harm to human life as just another "green issue" like "birds and wildlife" obstructing the interests of commerce. If jobs or wealth are going to be created or destroyed, they should either take a statement on the record directly from the corporation involved, or interview someone who can present the facts without leaving anything we need to know out. They should not waste our time on someone who just makes up stuff as he goes along, following the rule that the corporation is always right. Mr "Admiral" Stoney has never seen a corporate interest he didn't like in the same way that Donald Rumsfeld has never seen a war he didn't like.

None of it matters. It'll all get washed away when the sea-level rises. The super-container ports, the lies, the criminally wasteful elite economics, as well as the rest of the human species if these stupid men are allowed to cling on until we all sink.

A paradise of mislesions

I got a document here which "goes through the 12 misleading arguments put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws."

Myron Ebell will be reading it to check for any he's missed. In this past year I've seen him use "Misleading argument" Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 12, in spite of the fact that 3 and 4, for example, contradict one another ("global warming isn't happening" vs. "it's happening, but not because of CO2").

Interestingly, it doesn't mention Myron's pet crackpot claim, which he is pretty unique in espousing, that the whole of climate change research is a conspiracy perpetrated by government funded scientists who have devised the Kyoto Protocol entirely for the purposes of damaging the United States' economic interests.

Don't believe me? Listen to his slanderous November 2004 interview here which he gave to the BBC shortly after the Banana Republicans stole the votes of Ohio in the 2004 US presidential elections from a crippled right-wing party. Basically, only scientists (or unqualified crackpot economists) who are funded by private industry (eg Exxon) can be considered truly independent of state-sponsored bias.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? There is not one brain cell between his left ear and his right that isn't wholly dedicated to the pursuance of deceit. It's like a boxing promotor puffing up his man before a fight: good for filling space, but not a lot of use if you want to find out the truth.