I’d be quite happy if you deleted all these comments as “off topic”:

1) Steve Bloom at February 28, 2006 02:47 PM

2) Mark Bahner at February 28, 2006 07:51 PM

3) Eli Rabett at March 1, 2006 10:49 AM

4) Dano at March 1, 2006 10:52 AM

The only reason I responded to Steve Bloom at all was that his characterization of my post (on Iraq) on my blog was so blatantly false.

Best wishes,
Mark

*snork*

Best,

D

Here is an example of how the agitprop is being recycled http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GRO502A.html

What a stunningly dishonest/insane comment. Of course, you’re no stranger to stunningly dishonest/insane comments, are you Steve?

After all, you’re the man who (HILARIOUSLY!) proclaimed that the environmental movement was NOT “leftist”! (Bwahahahahaha! That still cracks me up!)

Here is the blog post to which you’re referring:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2003/09/us_troop_casual.html

That post was written on September 1, 2003. The post concludes with the following statement, “But if we compare Iraq to Vietnam, or even Korea, it’s pretty hard to see where the word “quagmire” comes from.”

Let’s review some events in Iraq since September 1, 2003:

1) Saddam Hussein captured, December 2003. (Since Uday and Qusay were killed in July 2003, that means that neither Saddam nor his sons will ever regain control of the government of Iraq.)

2) Elections of interim government in January 2005.

3) Draft of constitution, and approval of constitution by nationwide referendum, October 2005.

4) Election of permanent government in January 2006.

So we have:

1) Vietnam: 55,000 mostly conscripted U.S. troops killed, over a period of more than a decade, and immediately as the U.S. leaves, a communist dictatorship is set up in South Vietnam that is still there today (more than 30 years later).

2) Korea: 53,000 mostly conscripted U.S. troops killed, over a period of more than 3 years. The war leaves a communist dictatorship in North Korea that is still there today…more than 50 years later. Additionally, the U.S. STILL has 25,000 troops in South Korea…again, more than 50 years later. Furthermore, South Korea was ranked by Freedom House as “not free” as late as 1973…nearly 20 years after the truce that ended the fighting.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/allscores2005.xls

3) Iraq: Approximately 2,300 entirely volunteer U.S. troops killed, over a period of 3 years. Saddam Hussein and his government completely driven from power, never to return. Several nationwide free and fair elections, including ratification of a constitution. Further, as early as next year, Iraq will probably have a Freedom House freedom ranking that’s higher than South Korea’s was 19 years after the truce that ended the Korean War. And Iraq ALREADY has a higher Freedom House freedom ranking than either North Korea (50+ years after the truce!) or Vietnam (30+ years after the U.S. withdrew, which enabled the South Vietnamese to be enslaved by the communists from the North).

So you can go back to your lying/fantisizing (a leftist specialty, eh?)…the facts don’t support you at all.

P.S. Did I tell you I found a 2004 Sierra Club nationwide list of voter recommendations? Over 95% Democrats, by my initial eyeballing (and the rest divided about equally between Independents/Republicans). But of course that just makes the Sierra Club “middle of the road” to you, doesn’t it? Bwahahahaha!

Best,

D

No, the IPCC TAR’s “projections” for atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases were developed for the purpose of scaring the lay public and politicians into supporting mandated reductions in CO2 and methane emissions. Anyone who claims otherwise is either not fully informed or not fully honest.

“You fail to understand (constantly, always, yet again) that projections are not derived scientifically,…”

The IPCC TAR’s “projections” may not be derived scientifically, but that doesn’t mean all projections CAN’T be derived scientifically. Look at 3-day and 5-day projections for hurricane paths, for example. Do you think the hurricane path projections aren’t derived scientifically?

http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm12/projectedpath_large.html

And do you honestly STILL think that projecting future methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperatures is like projecting future lottery numbers? (See my comment at 4:36 PM on June 17, 2005, on my blog.)

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/06/free_money_offe.html

Or do you now understand, for example, how knowledge of science can lead to the conclusion that the methane atmospheric concentration projections in the IPCC TAR are laughably high?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-17.htm

“Wake up. The rest of us will keep the cotton in our ears while you ululate.”

I’m wide awake. Are you still as ignorant as you were when you were ululating about how projecting future methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperatures was like projecting future lottery numbers? (See above.)

“And if you must put quotes around projections, this indicates you don’t know enough about the subject to speak to it.”

I know plenty about the subject. (And if you think you know more than I do, why don’t you offer to give Andrew Dessler a hand? See postscript.)

I put quotes around the IPCC’s “projections,” so lay people will understand that the word as the IPCC uses it (i.e., to scare people) is not the same as when, for example, hurricane forecasters use the word. That is, hurricane forecasters use the word “projection” in an honest and scientific manner. The IPCC uses the word “projection” in a dishonest attempt to scare people.

P.S. Since you apparently think you know something about projecting future methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions, and resultant temperatures, why don’t you offer your services to Andrew Dessler? He still hasn’t responded to my Fabulous Free Money Offer (see my comments beginning February 17). Perhaps you could offer to help him, for a cut of the money.

As things stand, this would appear to be a fair summary:

“Surveys have shown scientists unevenly split on the issue of whether global warming theory has been adequately proven, with a majority agreeing that global warming will occur in future if human behavior does not change.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I suggest that sceptics who don’t like these results should conduct their own survey and see whether they can produce the unanimous consensus some people believe exists.