TIGER Woods was rated as “horrible in bed” by one of his lovers, it was revealed yesterday.
Someone needs to tell him that this isn’t a game where the goal is to minimize the number of strokes. Of course, I don’t know what par is for that particular hole.
He wants Kyopenhagen to fail. I don’t agree with his reason, though — he’s opposed because it won’t go far enough in wrecking the global economy.
Crafty use of statistics, lack-of-transparency, wild projections about future calamity requiring government intervention now…Hmmmm.
If all of this is sounding familiar there’s a reason. Stefan Rahmstorf is one of the CRU e-mail clatch and a contributor to Real Climate. For instance, here is an e-mail in which he is desperately seeking help writing a reply to a critic.
Based on this alarmist study, Schwarzenegger and the State of California have put together…a…video which includes the Rahmstorf’s prediction of a 4 foot sea level rise by 2100 and images of San Francisco inundated by rising seas.
By the way, the California Energy Commission which is pushing this is the same group that outlawed future sales of my TV a few weeks ago. Maybe I shouldn’t worry about it since TVs don’t work well underwater anyway.
I’ll be OK. We’re a couple dozen feet above at least, with dunes between us and the beach a mile and a half away.
Between jobs prospects and debt realities. Some depressing thoughts from Veronique de Rugy.
Because there are so many better reasons to scuttle the nonsense in Copenhagen:
While it’s great fun — and entirely worthwhile — to make a big stink about Climategate, it would be a shame if people believed that Copenhagen’s inevitable failure hinged on this one scandal. Even if the CRU researchers were the model of scientific dispassion, these schemes are pointless. Indeed, even if global warming is the threat the alarmists claim it is, it makes no sense to waste trillions of dollars on “fixes” that will do little to fix the alleged problem.
I like the reference to Canada as the Richie Cunningham of the UN.
It’s a gas, man:
Just a few years ago, the industry didn’t have the technology to unlock these reserves. But thanks to advances in horizontal drilling and methods of fracturing rock with high-pressure blasts of water, sand and chemicals, vast gas reserves in the United States are suddenly within reach.
As a result, said BP chief executive Tony Hayward, “the picture has changed dramatically.”
“The United States is sitting on over 100 years of gas supply at the current rates of consumption,” he said. Because natural gas emits half the greenhouse gases of coal, he added, that “provides the United States with a unique opportunity to address concerns about energy security and climate change.”
Recoverable U.S. gas reserves could now be bigger than the immense gas reserves of Russia, some experts say.
But it doesn’t require us to tighten our hair shirts, so it’s off the table.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s hit-whoring, I give you…boobies! Definitely NSFW.
Temporary scientist Frank J. says that we can’t handle the truth:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to have scientific equipment on them to gather data, and that data studied by men with computers. Who’s going to do it? A layman like you? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the global warming skeptics and curse the climatologists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that the crushing of data contrary to global warming, while tragic, probably saved grant money. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to the layman, creates scientific consensus. You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about on Twitter, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall studying those measurements you can’t even begin to comprehend.
I’m ashamed to have questioned such noble and selfless people.
Whoever found this post, based on this search probably didn’t find what he was looking for. (Second link mildly NSFW…)
[Update a while later]
I don’t know whether to be encouraged or appalled that I’m Google’s number six for that search.
Does anyone really think that NASA PAO’s Mark Hess is “unfamiliar” with the British climate controversy? If so, he should be canned for rank incompetence. NASA (and of course Dr. Hansen) are starting to look as dirty as the CRU.