Little Red Book Hoax

I guess I missed the whole “Little Red Book” story, especially the revelation that it was a total crock from day one.

Two questions:

  1. Why is it that virtually all of the total crock stories are anti-Bush/War? Shouldn’t these honest mistakes fall more or less evenly across the board? Does the media more-readily swallow the stories that support their position? Or are there more liars on the Left?
  2. I forgot the second question


  1. I seem to recall a fair number of sordid conspiracy theories Re: Clinton coming from the Right. Of which nothing, except the infamous stained dress debacle, ever was awarded the label of truth. And I am none too pleased with the Right’s stance on Global Warming/Climate Change/thingy. (The Left is loony in this regard too, but the science is really dead on)

  2. I wouldnt say the ‘science’ is dead on. Its just interpretted by either side for their own good. But from the gist of it, global warming is more or less a natural phenomenon in which the human factor only causes a change of 1 degree or so in average global temperatures.

  3. Interpretation/Analysis is a problem with Journalists/MSM. It’s the Lefty/Righty Editorialists who then take that poorly written copy and make a mess of things. And 1 degree or so, in the timespan of 150 years, with no end in sight, and at an increasing rate, is [dot] [dot] [dot] unprecedented. (short of mega-meteors and such) For mobetta information on climate change from an apolitical and scientific source I reccomend:

  4. And 1 degree or so, in the timespan of 150 years, with no end in sight, and at an increasing rate, is [dot] [dot] [dot] unprecedented. (short of mega-meteors and such)’ Uhh, no… it’s fully precedented. We’ve seen natural changes of 1 degree over 150 year time spans in the near past. Check out the graph on this page. It’s a bit small, but as you can see, global temperature average went up about 0.5 degrees between 1810 and 1900 (faster if you look at the excursions but I’m talking about the trend) – most of it before the industrial revolution. Why? Various factors, mostly not related to humans. Look at the correlation on that graph between the variance of the brightness of the sun and global temperatures and tell me they’re not related. If you look back further (I’ve seen graphs that go back for thousands of years based on ice core data) you’ll see radical temperature fluctuations well before industrialisation, such as the Medieval Optimum where the earth was several degrees warmer than it is now (Greenland was inhabitable back then), then there’s the Little Ice Age, etc. etc. I just can’t find the links/graphs right now. There’s no real evidence that more than a tiny fraction of any temperature change is caused by humans. A change in brightness of the sun of 0.1% is enough to warm or cool the earth by 1 degree – and we know the sun’s brightness is not uniform. Other factors also dwarf our ability to change the climate in any meaningful way. After all, how are we supposed to tell, if the temperature changes, what’s causing it? The changes we’re seeing don’t fit ‘global warming’ predictions – so how do we explain them then? Personally I’m more worried about how we’re going to prevent the next ice age. Anything we can do to warm the planet before it starts is vital, in my opinion. Of course we don’t know when it’s going to happen, but it’s quite likely it will be within the next 1000 years. The current inter-glacial period is unusually long.

  5. Warning signs from ‘the Graph’: ‘Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.’ ‘The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)’ ‘Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.’ Dow Jones? WSJ? Trusting MSM are we? 1997? got anything recent? Chemists? Got any climatologists? my source: all recent. all non-MSM. All Climatologists (the bloggers, not necessarily the commentators. No BS. and yeah I could be wrong about my 1 degree over 150 years thingy. I will look into it. btw here is a good Q&A article from the Seattle Times; yeah I know, MSM; but it features a real Climatologist, and it’s up to date.

  6. Snover: Societies around the world have developed with anticipation of certain climate patterns and depend on climate-dependent natural resources.

    Sorry, we know climate has changed naturally for thousands of years, as I have explained. People adapt. They adapted to living in Greenland during the Medieval Optimum, then when it got too cold later they left. I doubt we can stop the climate changing naturally as it has for millions of years, which is documented both historically as well as in ice core samples, sediment layers, etc.

    Wallace: Yes, there have been dramatic climate swings in the past, but with very few exceptions, they have occurred gradually, on time scales of thousands of years.

    Wrong again. I’ve seen plenty of convincing evidence from ice cores, sedimentary beds, historical records, etc. that climate has changed radically in the past. How do you explain the little ice age? That was recent enough to be well documented and produced very low temperatures in europe that lead to many deaths etc. I mean, if this guy can’t get the answers to the first two questions anywhere near the truth, I don’t think I can be bothered to continue reading…

  7. In fact the more I think about it, the more I suspect that the current ‘global warming’ is actually just a return to normal temperatures from the little ice age. It ended as recently as 1850. And since we know the little ice age ended in 1850, and temperatures are much higher now, why do you doubt that graph which shows temperatures climbing from 1850 to 1940? We also know that 1940-1970 or so involved some global cooling. In fact, this Newsweek article is rather amusing to read. That graph I showed also indicates that period of cooling. So, since 1970 or so, the correction back to average interglacial temperatures seems to be on track. Why is that a ‘doom and gloom’ scenario? We’re well overdue for an ice age. We should be glad we seem to have dodged that bullet. I think that would cause some really serious problems…

  8. That was recent enough to be well documented and produced very low temperatures in europe that lead to many deaths etc.’ -in Europe. The Little Ice Age was a -Local- Dramatic Climate change. Dramatic -Global- Climate changes are another matter. Getting waay OT. (‘T’ being MSM and politcal truthtelling) anyway, thanks for the Lindzen article, that will give me some reading. Do stay on with they at least address Lindzen.

  9. OK, look, sorry for being OT and such. My POV is simply that until current models and theories can explain historical data I can’t place much weight on their results, and I think there is too much we don’t know to be making dire predictions. CO2 levels have been very high in the past, without concurrently high temperatures necessarily being incident, and water is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 anyway. Until this is all cleared up I think we should adopt a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Technology is making for less pollution anyway, that’s an avenue which I would like to see fully explored for health reasons if no other.

  10. Wasn’t diggin’ at you for being OT, just a general comment…I am just as guilty. aside from that, my current understanding is that the best current predictive models are unable to reasonablyt predict without including anthroprogenic CO2. -shrugs-

  11. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.. more nuclear power please. I don’t know if CO2 output is going to cause serious harm but I think it’s a good idea regardless. Even just from the point of view of conserving resources we’re going to need in future, the less we burn the better. But I’m not going to kill myself over it for various reasons. The Wikipedia article on the Little Ice Age is rather excellent. They suggest it was probably a global phenomenon judging by samples taken from glaciers and such. But it’s possible you are right it was more severe in Europe than elsewhere. I was under the impression current models couldn’t really predict very accurate results either way, but you may be right. I’m not claiming humans have no effect on the climate. Rather, I haven’t seen any evidence we’re the primary drivers of climate change. I’m more of the impression that we’re bit players. If we do start going into an ice age I hope to god we can do something about it, or else I suppose those of us who live in currently cold climates are going to have to move towards the equator to survive. Back on topic… the whole Clinton business was pretty disgusting. OK, so he’s guitly of something that a lot of men are, which I happen to think is a bad thing but as long as he does a good job as President I think his private life should be left alone. The rest of us expect that kind of treatment… But what I do see from ‘left’ issues is a mental laziness and moral ambivalency which bothers me. They throw the word ‘lie’ around innappropriately – as if they don’t know what it means – and their attitude seems to be ‘who cares if it’s true, as long as it makes the other side look bad’. I’m sure there are people like that in all facets of politics. But I wouldn’t want to associate myself with them.

  12. What the heck happened to my stupid little post?!? Anyway, on Global Warming, I have trouble swallowing the idea that humans are largely responsible for it even if it exists. That being said, I’m also anti-pollution, as it’s dirty, smelly, and stupid. Although I realize it isn’t risk-free, I believe that the advantages of a much larger nuclear power base far outweigh any disadvantages.

  13. Sorry Murdoc 🙂 Yes, Nuclear is not risk free, but nor are any of the alternatives. Lots of people die mining coal and breathing the combusion products. You have to keep it in perspective. Changing to Nuclear power, risky as it may be, could still be a net decrease in overall risk. According to some pages I read (can’t be bothered finding them, google should work if you’re interested), although we produce somewhat more CO2 than we used to, pollution levels are WAY down from last century. We burn more but we burn it more cleanly. Yay technology! I was reading this PDF yesterday. It makes a number of rather good cases for the argument that we’re only responsible for a small component of global warming (if it’s even a significant phenomenon), and it’s written by someone who seems to be in a position to know what they’re talking about.

  14. Re the PDF, it is published by The Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. which makes me suspicious. The host site, Friends of Science, doesn’t go into much detail and doesn’t apparantly allow any discussion of their claims, some of which I think are dubious. On another note, except for abstract appreciation for the niftyness of the Carbon Trading Schema, I don’t much care for the Kyoto Treaty either. I think that if subsidies and tax breaks unfair/inneficient regulations were worldwide eliminated, the problem would largely fix itself, with perhaps some aggressive basic open technology development. And most especially, any military adventures seeking to stabilize fossil fuel prices should be paid for directly by consumers of those fuels, not lost in the other tax systems.