We Are the 95%! James Corbett on IPCC Climate Change ‘Propaganda’

intergovernmental_panel_on_climate_change_ipcc_cha_524613ac21

We are the 95%! – IPCC
Stockholm. REUTERS/Jessica Gow/TT News Agency

We Are The 95%! -IPCC

So just what does the latest suppositional proclamation that the IPCC is peddling, actually mean?  That being, that they are “95% certain” that humans are causing ‘climate change’.  James Corbett breaks down the latest effort to make science appear to be a popularity contest.  Just, “how sure are these scientists?  They say 95% certain, and in science 95% is pretty darn certain….” -CNN repeater

Via the CorbettReport.com

In recent days, you’ve probably heard ad nauseum that the UN’s new IPCC report claims that it is “95% certain” that humans are causing climate change.

95% is a very specific number. So where does it come from?

The IPCC uses a “likelihood scale” that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from “exceptionally unlikely” (0-1% probability) to “virtually certain” (99-100% probability). This sounds like it is based on a precise scientific measurement or well-defined statistical process, but when it comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is manmade, this is in fact a subjective decision that is made by the report’s authors.

According to the IPCC: “The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.”

In other words, the “95% probability” that is making all of the headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed door meetings between the report authors. Still, it serves an important propaganda purpose in giving a veneer of scientific credibility to the decision, one that a media that never bothers to explain these decisions to you thinks you will be too stupid to figure out for yourself:

Keep reading.

, , ,

  • Andrew

    I am a .00000001%.

  • Zac

    What about all the scientists that lost their jobs years back for disagreeing with the “global warming” agenda?

  • echar

    Too stupid indeed…

    Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

    They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

    Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn’t get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

    But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

    “Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment,” said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. “Will the sun come up in the morning?” Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can’t really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

    What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists
    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-certainty-scientists.html

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Sure we are having some effect. But what effect exactly? Is it enough to give all the rich bastards orchestrating this fraud their CO2 tax?

      Remember?

      95% is a very specific number. So where does it come from?

      The IPCC uses a “likelihood scale”
      that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from
      “exceptionally unlikely” (0-1% probability) to “virtually certain”
      (99-100% probability). This sounds like it is based on a precise
      scientific measurement or well-defined statistical process, but when it
      comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is manmade, this
      is in fact a subjective decision that is made by the report’s authors.

      According to the IPCC:
      “The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot
      fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment
      is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause
      is responsible for a given climate change.”

      In other words, the “95% probability” that is making all of the
      headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed
      door meetings between the report authors. Still, it serves an important
      propaganda purpose in giving a veneer of scientific credibility to the
      decision, one that a media that never bothers to explain these decisions
      to you thinks you will be too stupid to figure out for yourself:

      • Andrew

        In my opinion deforestation is likely a much, much larger cause than CO2 emissions.

        • Hocketeer

          Speaking of gang rape…
          Why we even need studies to prove we are messing up the planet baffles me, I guess we have become especially heartless and blind. By now it should be crystal clear Mother Nature is not the submissive type of lady. I wonder if future attempts
          by human “ingenuity” to control & harness her will improve the
          situation or just backfire as it has repeatedly.

        • echar

          I see what you did there. :)

          How about this?

          Can’t see the forest for the trees. Heck let’s clear cut it. That way the forest is no longer a part of the equation.

      • echar

        • Andrew

          ….

          • The Well Dressed Man

            can’t wait ’til these appear in the wild…

      • Haystack

        Why do rich bastards want a CO2 tax?

        • marshall

          Why do rich bastards have 40,000 sq ft houses, with $30,000 a year in energy costs, and tell everyone else they are bad people and need to sacrifice their way of life to save the world? Classic double standard.

          • Haystack

            It’s pretty clear from where I sit that rich people are constantly lobbying for tax breaks and deregulation. Wealthy industries that make their money on fossil fuels, and goods that are dependent upon fossil fuels in their supply chain, clearly don’t want a CO2 tax.

            Big money is the only reason why anyone pretends that climate change is controversial.

          • marshall

            You are correct, but also, big money controls what is known a “green” or “clean” energy. Everything in this world has a dollar sign to them, and they will use anyone and everyone to get that. We live in a world of false dichotomies and false paradigms, and its time for us to break out of that, and the first step is to question, literally, everything. Even that which sounds noble or true, like saving the world climate through less use of resources or being responsible or whatever. There is always an ulterior motive. I think that is wha many so called “deniers” are trying to do the the flat earth people out there.

          • echar

            From my perspective, you’ve answered everything yourself when you noted “everything in this world has a dollar sign”. Even though I disagree about everything, I prefer the sombunall aproach.

            I digress, it will take money to clean up the mess the Wealthy industries have created for all of us.If you can’t see that, than you’re either an idiot, or your money is at risk, imo.

          • marshall

            But, you missed my main point: THE WEALTHY INDUSTRY WHOM POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT OWN THE GREEN MOVEMENT. My money, your money and everyones money is at stake here, and the stake is that we will have none if they get their way. No money equals no power, and that is what the system is built upon. Those people that buy into the AGW concept are the same kind of people that were absolutely sure the earth was flat at one point, and you couldn’t convince them otherwise, until it was too late. Too late for us will be when we are total resource slaves and own nothing for ourselves anymore.

          • echar

            NO!

          • Andrew

            > THE WEALTHY INDUSTRY WHOM POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT OWN THE GREEN MOVEMENT.

            Evidence, please.

          • marshall

            About once per quarter, National Grid tries to sell me their alternative forms of energy via paper mail and email, that they own, and they are a huge electric and gas provider. They are incredibly powerful and wealthy, and they aren’t even an American business. That is just one piece of evidence.

          • Andrew

            That is one piece of evidence that one energy company is trying to sell alternative forms of energy too, not that the green movement is owned by wealthy polluters.

          • marshall

            Business is business man, you really think that is a coincidence, or from the goodness of their hearts? I don’t know the extent of your beliefs about AGW, but I will assume you suport the concept, and I would propose that you use that same line of reasoning toward AGW. That one piece of evidence that higher CO2 levels due to human activity correlated with higher average global temperatures doesn’t mean that CO2 from human activity raised the average global temperature.

          • Andrew

            Again, that businesses are trying to make money off the need for alternative energies is not evidence that they’ve orchestrated the green movement.

            And as I’ve said, I believe deforestation is a much greater cause of AGW than CO2 emissions.

          • marshall

            And I would agree with you about deforestation, it’s irresponsible and takes away from natures ability to clean itself up and recycle.

          • Haystack

            Questioning things is what scientists do, and when they all come to such a strong consensus on an issue like this…I wonder if the problem is simply that we don’t like the answer.

          • marshall

            Even the dumbest dog dare not bite the hand that feeds it…who funds these scientists, and what kind of credentials do they have? From investigative reports from too many sources to cite, and even Corbett himself, these leading climate change experts (they cant be called scientists, as unfortunately there is no scientific method used or experiment used to validate the concept of AGW) are getting what amount to op-ed pieces from undergraduate students and graduate students whom have no experience in the field. Caring for your environment is noble, but it starts with the individual, the household, the community, the state, and the federal government, not the other way around. Legislation that limits rights, lowers standards and legitimizes tyranny is not the answer to anything, it starts with a cultural change and shift in the paradigm. Supporting the IPCC is supporting veiled science and big money/big government cronyism. Oh, and as I keep stating here, Jarl Kampen in “A methodological note…” (Oct. 2010) debunked the IPCC and the logical fallacy and lack of scientific clout of AGW. Scientific consensus is equivelent to the Council of Nicaea in its ridiculousness and blatent revisionism and disregard for everything that doesn’t benefit their agenda.

          • Haystack

            The atmosphere is a collective resource that we all depend upon. If you pump deadly gases into the air I breath, change the climate in which I dwell, that limits my individual freedom. Legislation which limits that increases, rather than restricts personal freedom.

            The problem we are facing is dire and immediate and action needs to happen on a global level if we are to avert a crisis. We don’t have the luxury of waiting for some cultural paradigm shift, and, in any event, it’s wrong to place the onus upon the victim rather than upon the offending party.

            I’m curious where the big money in climate change is supposed to be. Given that our economy is dependent upon fossil fuels, it would seem to me that the big money would weigh very heavily toward denial.

          • marshall

            No, deadly gases do not search your person or property without a warrant. They don’t permanently detain you without due process. They don’t limit your right to use weapons to overthrow a corrupt government, and protect yourself. Immediate action is in fact not needed, and ultimately the climate will change with or without our intervention. If the victim and the offending party are both responsible for damaging the climate, then a shift in the paradigm is gravely needed. Your assesment of the denail weight is founded, but I am positing the idea that the big money and those that control it are playing both sides, which is the true problem. Also, my stance is that, don’t claim the concept of AGW as true science, it just simply isn’t. Until we can study a planet for say 100,000 years, with every single second mirroring our own (human activity), and everything about that planet being exactly like ours, and everything happening the exact same way, AND having control planets to study, there just isn’t a way to conduct a real scientific experiment to make this concept a fact. The evidence is good, but it can be falsified and contradicted, and is presented as causal correlating, which maked it’s case unsubstantiated and continues to do so. Like I said before, we should care about our ecosystem the way we care about ourselves and our homes/property. And I believe that is the root of the problem, the disconnect between us and the earth and each other. Is it by design? At this point, we go down a very strange path of discussion…

          • Haystack

            If CO2 adds energizes the atmosphere and causes a hurricane or other extreme weather event, it can destroy your home. If it gives you cancer, it can take everything from you.

            The fact that one can’t live a normal life in the USA without pay-rolling the burning of fossil fuels doesn’t place equal responsibility upon the individual. The choice presented to the individual is to buy fossil fuels, or to live in a yurt on a subsistence farm. In order for individuals to have the option to live a fairly normal life while also protecting the climate, government must skew the playing field against what is currently economical, in favor of what will make sense in the future. Government is a way of solving a collective action problem that would otherwise be insurmountable.

            If your argument is that a CO2 tax would support government, and government may be tyrannical, I would point out that this would be true of ANY tax. If a CO2 tax to industry serves to protect the air we breathe, and the stability of the climate we depend upon, then it seems far less objectionable than, say, the regular personal income taxes we collect every day. Why, then, focus on the CO2 tax? What if the additional revenue derived from CO2 were offset by a tax break in personal income tax–would that not render your point about government tyranny moot?

            I agree that to be perfectly certain we would need to study the planet for 100,000 years, but if anthropogenic climate is real, then clearly we don’t have that time. We have to act upon our best information. If we insist upon playing devil’s advocate until we’re absolutely certain, then we’re playing a very dangerous game. If the evidence is at least “good,” in your estimation, then, given the potential short-term consequences involved, should we not take serious action?

          • marshall

            In summation, my argument is that we should have never come to this point. The only reason we are in this debate is due to greed and apathy. Those whom have propagated the use and distribution of pollutants knew of their destructive potential, regardless of what science can or can’t prove; its just common sense. We should have lived for each others and the earths benefit from the beginning, and those that think otherwise should be shut down by those of us that care about life and freedom. Forget about the concept of AGW, its Oz behind the curtain. People like me will argue this point of scientific validity solely for that fact alone, until humanity wins.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Consensus is not science by the way.

          • Haystack

            Peer-review is science.

          • Heather Turner

            Absolutely. I would say the only people benefiting from propagating climate change as a hoax are obviously large oil/energy companies. It sounds like a lot of industry PR bouncing around on these threads. I mean there are lines right out the mouths of Shell, Chevron, BP and fracking frackers. Being suspicious of science, but repeating verbatim what some PR guy probably took less than 10 minutes to write … yeah …

  • Liam_McGonagle

    >Sigh<

    Quote: ". . . but when it comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is manmade, this is in fact a subjective decision that is made by the report’s authors."

    Response: Um, not quite. 95% is a STANDARD one-sided confidence interval calculated based on the deviations in hard data, factually observed (e.g., historical records and dendrochronological and other direct physical) data. It's a well-established formula that's been around from centuries, and until now, apparently, it's been good enough to manage everything from manufacturing efficiencies to air traffic control.

    The methodology does not simply allow jury-rigging of data, although it does require experience and training to operate the equipment, vet data for integrity and perform the calculations. But I concede that it takes a bit more education, professionalism and commitment to do so than to write a half-arsed article decrying it.

    But whatevs. I'm old enough now to know how this goes. Doesn't matter what the objective evidence is. If they don't want to believe something, people will latch onto anything to convince themselves that up is down and day is night.

    • Heather Turner

      Ugh. thanks for being the one dude on this thread that took the time to explain where that seemingly random number came from. Science is apparently one mysterious bitch.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        For you it certainly seems to be.

        • Jelly Belly

          What an asp.

          • Liam_McGonagle

            ‘What an asp [sic]?’
            You mean like a snake?

    • marshall

      It’s impossible to statistically calculate the percentage of an opinion. The so called empirical data of proponents of AGW can be falsified, therefore it is a logical fallacy. Keep truckin’ Smokey.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        You are making some big errors here, largely, it seems, because you lack a fundamental understanding of the scientific method.

        Quote: “It’s impossible to statistically calculate the percentage of an opinion. . . .”

        Scientists test hypotheses. You seem to have pulled the notion that a scientist can test an opinion out of your *ss, because nowhere did I say anything like that, and your very idea is completely at odds with basic logic.

        Hypotheses are tentative statements of relationship which must meet the criteria of falsifiability (e.g., be formulated in a manner which can be tested through observation as true or false) in order to achieve endorsement.

        These scientists have tested the hypothesis that human activity is causing climate change. They have used statistically valid methods to do so; methods that have been vetted for hundreds of years and been accepted so completely that they have become integral to our culture’s most basic functions. People trust their lives to these ideas hundreds of millions of times every day.

        Based on the statistical evaluation of test results, the scientists have arrived at a conclusion. A conclusion is a response to a proposition, such as an hypothesis.

        The difference between this scientific conclusion and a mere opinion is that opinions need not satisfy any consistent standard in order to achieve endorsement, whereas a scientific conclusion has to satisfy many.

        Opinions are, potentially at least, mere creatures of whimsy or sloppy and undisciplined thought, whereas the conclusions of scientists are subject to the numerous constraints of a transparent and rigorous framework which is millenia old.

        You really put the cart before the horse here. You started out with an ‘opinion’ before you even examined the rigor of the testing methodology. No wonder you’re mixed up.

        You need to understand the basics of the scientific method before you can even begin to understand what a statistically calibrated statement of conclusion is.

        • gustave courbet

          I don’t disagree with your assessment. I would add that, in my opinion, it is not Corbett’s supposed scientific illiteracy that has lead him to his skepticism. It is rather his intensive distrust of organizations such as the IPCC or the UN that cause him to seize on such statements as “cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment…” He may be making an error in judgement, but for reasons of paranoia rather than ignorance to the methods of science. While I tend to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change, I am also aware that science as a human institution is not neutral and can be ‘gamed’ and I suspect that this is Corbett’s position.

          • echar

            He probably shouldn’t use flimsy arguments that make him look stupid. Which IMO makes him appear to be so overcome with paranoia that he’s prone to make such a mistake, as did Camron.

          • gustave courbet

            I agree. While I enjoy Corbett’s analysis on some subjects, he has definitely demonstrated reactionary tendencies and reflexive reactions to some subjects of inquiry, as most of us do from time to time.

          • echar

            I understand, and am prone to making errors. The key is learning from them, and not exposing others to eroneous thought. It can be catching.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Echar, what mistake do you assume I am making?

            Read this please. It appears to me this ploy is nothing more than putting a new dress on an old specter.

            Via http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

            “.. The Trenberth letter states: “Research shows that
            more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that
            climatechange is real and human caused.” However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. [emphasis mine]

            The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we
            would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some [emphasis mine] impact.

            But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. Toclaim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does,that disputing this constitutes “extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert” is peculiar indeed.”
            (Wall Steet Journal)

        • marshall

          When was the last time a scientific experiement was used to test the hypothesis of AGW?

        • marshall

          And through your point, you are verifying that perception and consensus is the reality, which is subjective, and does not amount to the truth, or establish a law. Because something is commonly accepted does not make it scientifically true, no matter what your profession is, or what your experience is. If data or evidence can be falsified or contradicted, it is not emperical.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Via http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

        “.. The Trenberth letter states: “Research shows that
        more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that
        climatechange is real and human caused.” However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. [emphasis mine]

        The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we
        would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some [emphasis mine] impact.

        But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. Toclaim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does,that disputing this constitutes “extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert” is peculiar indeed.” (Wall Steet Journal)

        • marshall

          Good post.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Thank you Marshall.

        • marshall

          What my question was really leading too is this: to do a true scientific study of AGW, we would have to be some kind of super gods that can observe planets, and of course, find a planet that is exactly like our in every way, and it must develop human life exactly the same way, and observe this planet and loads of other phenomenon to gather undisputable, empirical data. Then, we would have to have control planets, again, exactly like ours, with no human life. It is just impossible, unless we can extend our lives to forever and become indestructible, and be able to travel to a parallel universe to observe ourselves. And have amazing technology.

    • Lookinfor Buford

      Prove their observations are factual.
      Furthermore, did you, Liam, bother to do your own analysis of the ‘conclusive’ multi-regression models their research relies on. Did you examine the models objectively for multi-colinearity, and other model-killing phenom? I’m 95% certain you did not, and 99% certain this panel is crafty enough to obfuscate their findings well enough that you ‘could’ not, even if you wanted to. Which is a convenient excuse for the rest of us to just flip them the bird (heh heh, like you!)
      Statistics is the only science where two equally experienced scientists can look at the same set of data and draw opposite conclusions from it
      — some dude who isn’t me.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Sorry I’ve been away from the discussion. In my opinion, the point is not the method by which they supposedly arrived at their 95% statistic. The point is that they are using deliberately ambiguous language to give the appearance that their press release dismisses all of the abundant and valid skepticism and criticism of the pronounced edicts of the IPCC. For example. Can anyone actually deny that the climate changes? I mean is that not what the accusation of being a “climate change denier” means? Of course they want us to believe that this means you distrust “science” and thus are a “flat earther” and not worthy of listening to in the least.

      AGW or its sexed up orwellian title “climate change”, is an apparition given life through media induced frenzy and sleight of hand hypnotic broadcasts designed to stimulate emotional reaction over rational thinking.

      Of course humans are having an influence, the question is to what degree? The 95% statistic is no more relevant than the 97% statistic they previously wanted implanted in the common mind, in the end, both are completely manufactured pronouncements designed to appeal to the automatic psychological principle, “a million people can’t be wrong”. They actually can and in this case it’s trickery masquerading as science through deceptive abuse of language and logic, aka, PROPAGANDA.

      The devil is truly in the details and the details demonstrate that for all of the panic inducing fear mongering, we should be more concerned with focusing our efforts on actual environmental remediation (fukushima anyone??) than the attempted manufacture of global form of taxation through the carbon trading scam.

      Remember this?
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

  • BuzzCoastin

    I’m 95% certain nothing whatsoever will be done to remedy the causes

    caused by humans

    • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

      Extinction is an elegant solution. Gaia is ineffably graceful at geological intervals.

  • Haystack

    How certain do you have to be that you’re about to drive off a cliff before you put your foot on the brake?

    • Andrew

      … FREEEEEEEEEDUMBBBBBB!!!!

    • marshall

      What cliff, the one that ends on your flat earth?

  • Grace Keira Seaborn-Schmidt

    Shouldn’t we be doing something even if people don’t believe in it? Worst case scenario you pay a few dollars so your children and grandchildren live on a healthier planet.

    • Andrew

      Money is life. And taxation is murder.

      • Heather Turner

        I guess some form of Anarchy it is!! Or more hyperbole?

        • Andrew

          Hyperbole all right, but not mine. I’ve seen people seriously argue those opinions.

          • Heather Turner

            lol. You had me!

    • marshall

      Our leaders and economic oligarchs should be doing something, they are the ones who made the mess. We are just the little people who are force fed their way of life.

    • Lookinfor Buford

      Yes. Do something, will you.

      • Grace Keira Seaborn-Schmidt

        I will and do…do you?

        • Grace Keira Seaborn-Schmidt

          I care about our planet and my children’s future. I am so sick of people complaining about worthwhile taxes! Do you use roads? Do you use hospitals or schools? Do you live on earth? Everyone has to pay a bit to get a lot.

  • Jason Lewis

    Oh Camron…your incalcitrance is nearly charming. Is it really your concern about taxation that is your resistance to this? You’re moving your own goal posts at this point having seen your previous full denial posts and comment rants. I guess the idea that we could actually have a lucid and intelligent conversation about where we can go from here as a society dealing with the reality of manmade global warming still isn’t possible for you. I’m not sure what dystopian evil liberal society you’ve envisioned but it seems pretty clear that without your, and other deniers’ acknowledgment of the reality of manmade global warming we’ll remain stuck in a rudimentary argument. Maybe that’s your goal at this point. Like the Republicans pulling this government shut down…facts and reality be damned.

  • Heather Turner

    yeah…. no. Precisely why I watch Corbett, but don’t take him seriously when he tries to explain basic methodology (or most other things that require a-less-than three minute Google search in order to find the correct information). A talking head on video does not make one a scientist, but nonetheless, I learned all about confidence intervals in college methodology courses, including experimental methodology in psychology, political science and mass communications. So it doesn’t take a scientist to understand basic methodology. Any student versed in basic research methods would know better. If Mr. Corbett were in my class, I would have flunked him on this part of the test. It would be nice if whoever posted this would put a nice disclaimer, “Mr. Corbett’s understanding of basic science is actually erroneous and full of disinformation. -Cheers.” -In other words, what that nice learned fella, Liam_McGonagle just said.

    • marshall

      Ok, you want a lesson on methadology? “A methodological note on the making of causal statements in the debate on anthropogenic global warming” by Jarl Kampen, Oct. 2010. Read it, I dare you. No, double-dog dare you.

      • Heather Turner

        … And James Corbett is still wrong about confidence intervals … Hmmm.

        • marshall

          Corbett is not the issue, he is just bringing up the issue in his own way and he has a platform to do it from. The Tyrants, like that great Immortal song (you should check it out) are manipulating us and hes pissed about it, as we should be too. Big picture stuff, Heather.

          • Heather Turner

            Nope. yep. you’ve got me. That is a fantastic way to win an argument. Facts do tend to cloud judgement. Better to rely upon basal instinct and blind prejudice. …We are the angry mob?

          • marshall

            We are the smart mob. AGW is a smokescreen.

21