Anthony's Accolytes

Subtitle: Only the hat matters, not the message!

WUWT  accolytes must be making Watts so proud.
He posts a piece titled
“Indiana James” Hansen on “Why I must speak out about climate change”

The accolytes respond with:

He looks like an Amish Climate Worrier, is his horse cart parked outside ?

Looks more and more like Homer Simpson

Is it a compulsory or can I get the course credit from cleaning up vomit in a gastro enteritis clinic, or laundering baby nappies? Something easier than watching this.

With people like that in control of the world we will never acquire the wealth and the technology to achieve voluntary population limitation and a truly sustainable future.

Green Hats should be made from palm fronds, pine cones, or recycled truck tires.
here:
I have failed to figure out the thought processes of this man but I have worked out why he wears the hat. It covers the five layer foil and insulation faraday cage beenie he wears under it.

Honest, I tried to watch it, but I got sick almost immediately

++++++++++++
There is very little substance to the responses (actually - none?)

And there are the pseudoscience proponents out in force:
Stephen Wilde says:

March 25, 2012 at 9:33 am

” I suspect Venus would be almost just as hot with a thick nitrogen atmosphere.”
Quite right, but don’t tell Willis Eschenbach or he’ll go cowboy on you :)

keep repeating it often enough and people will believe!

Is this person a warmist for just the money?

Worth Listening to.



The answer to the question in my mind is NO Hansen is simply thinking of the future. He does not sound desperate for the money, just what he is passing on to his grand children.

In the 70's I felt that the "H-Bomb" was the biggest threat to life on this planet. I therefore demonstrated against continued reliance on this "defence"
In the 00s I now believe that Global warming/global resources will be some of the biggest threats to continued existence at this level of ease of living we in the west enjoy.
The "west" can probably continue at this level for hundreds of years - but only if we keep the rest of the world at 3rd world state. (or below) 

We need poorly paid workers to support our lifestyle
We need to keep them poorly paid so they cannot afford to use our fossil fuels.
We need them poorly paid to prevent them adding to global warming.

A couple of quotes:

“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result”

“We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”

The wonders of plant genetics - Monsanto

Worth a read:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/tom-philpott-mojo-how-npr-got-it-wrong.html

The view from Monsanto:
http://monsantoblog.com/2010/05/04/roundup-resistant-superweeds/

From the comments section:
Lee Amon says:

May 16, 2010 at 11:50 pm

You suggested going to the International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds, which I did, and found this graph http://www.weedscience.org/ChronIncrease.gif

Showing how the number of resistant weeds has exploded. And that is supposed to reassure us?

• Mica says:

  May 17, 2010 at 11:36 am

  @Lee – I believe the chart you pulled off the weedscience.org home page is for all resistant weeds to all classes of herbicides. There are more than 300 resistant weeds. That graph shows that herbicide-resistant weeds are not new.
  What may be more helpful is this chart from the same website:
• http://www.weedscience.org/ChronMOA.GIF.
• 

  
  This graph lists the number of resistant weeds by the type of herbicide. You’ll note that the blue line represents glycines, which is the category of herbicide that glyphosate-based chemicals (including Roundup) fall into. This category includes less than 20 weeds. The majority of the weeds in the graph you linked to earlier are resistant to other classes. So, there are around 280 resistant weeds to other herbicides.

===========
It seems to me that there is a herbicide problem in the offing, much like the human antibiotic overuse leading to resistance.


"Starting in 1996, farmers began to plant Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton across millions of acres of farmland without restriction."
So it took 5 years for roundup ready resistance to develop in weeds.

Looking at the second graph it appears that the vertical scale is resistant biotypes. - so if a glyphosate only kills 20 biotypes then it has hit full resistance as shown by the flattening of the line.

It would have been more constructive to have a % of biotypes resistant out of biotypes killed as the vertical scale.

Hmmm! do we need to think of what we are doing to the planet?

Where are roundup resistant weeds found:

http://www.weedscience.org/Maps/GlyphosateMap.htm

UK is free - no GMOs

HERBICIDE RESISTANT WEEDS BY COUNTRY

USA	139
Australia	61
Canada	52
France	33
Spain	33
Israel	27
Brazil	26
Germany	26
United Kingdom	24
Italy	19
Belgium	18
Japan	18
Malaysia	17
Czech Republic	16
Chile	14
China	14
South Africa	14
Switzerland	14
Turkey	14
South Korea	12
Iran	11
New Zealand	10
Poland	10
Venezuela	9
Argentina	8
Bolivia	7
Greece	7
The Netherlands	7
Colombia	6
Yugoslavia	6
Costa Rica	5
Mexico	5
Norway	5
Thailand	5

http://www.weedscience.org/summary/CountrySummary.asp

Does the rest of the map agree?

Tar sands - What is the TRUTH

A couple of videos from one side of the debate:









Story from:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-you-watch-anything-this-week-watch.html

Heartland Fun -The Gleick affair

Firstly let me say I have no idea whether Gleick wrote the memo. Secondly by claiming to be some one else he went further than he should.

The Gleick affair:
If I were faking a memo, and then publishing it for all to dissect (e.g. see here), and I'm not an idiot, so I'd know it would be dissected for similarities to my writing style, and beliefs.

Would I not change that style to another, similar to writings from where I claim it was sent from?
Would I not ensure that my name is not unduly represented?
Would I not make it look just a fraction like it originated at HI.

An alternative view.

Gleick has been bugging my mates from HI with science. I know my mates have nothing to back their arguments and if the conversations continue then they will loose the debate. How to help?

Discredit Gleick!

Easy he is obviously in a somewhat heated mood!
First prime the gun with a document. Make this "leaked" note appear to be written in the style of Gleick - he probably will not notice and it contains some choice phrases so he will probably publish it if he can get corroboration.
Now let's send a sweet email (we'll publish these as proof of how wonderful we are to enrage further - let's invite him to a debate and call his talk part of the entertainment (i.e. it will be a joke session)
"We usually have a keynote speaker or debate for the “entertainment” portion of the event, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to come to Chicago to debate James Taylor" That should push him one step further james Tayloer - a true nonentity in the climate world!
Now we'll rub it in a bit and add a few hinted insults::
" If you’d ever like to engage in a public debate with a Heartland scholar on the topic of climate change, our door is always open.
As for the “entertainment” bit … I think you misunderstand. That word was not intended to make frivolous what Heartland does — in general, or certainly at our annual benefit dinner. We’re a think tank. We love debate, and thrive on intellectual back-and-forth. To me, and our supporters, such a stimulating discussion IS ALSO entertaining. Learning should ever be so.".

Success!
Now wait for Gleick to publish and we have him!

One down! how many more to go?
-------------
There we have it - a sting arranged by HI
Is this any sillier than Mosher looking for the placement of brackets and commas in a small document and trying to prove it was Gleick what done it!?