Tag Archives: John Kerry

Global Boooooooring

I haven’t even started writing this and I’m already bored to tears.  This is going to cause me physical pain. It is so incredibly stupid.  But…here goes.

For my real life job I work for a company that manufactures high quality accessories for cars and trucks.  I’ve worked there for 23 years.  Several years ago we were introducing a new widget at the big yearly trade show.  Someone came up with the idea of making a big sign to go over the item that simply proclaimed “Product of the Year.”  I witnessed a lot of traffic come into our booth to ask about the highlighted item.  We were three days into a four day show before the first person asked, “Product of the year.  According to who?” (He didn’t say “whom”.)     I told him we took a poll in the office and we all agreed.

Back in February Secretary of State John Kerry said that climate change was the “world’s most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction, he went on to say, “the science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act.”

Wow.  “Leaping science” sounds kind of scary.

Confuse an Idoit

I don’t recommend it, but if you want to slip into a self induced coma you can read the speech here.

Then, more recently 30 Democratic senators spent the entire night having a “’talkathon‘” about climate change. Can you imagine anything more boring?

In John Kerry’s speech he said, “When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond.  Well, 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible.”  And then Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator repeated the same thing.  “97%! 97%! 97%!”  Some even upped it to 98% – which is even more.

Global Warming

First of all.  Who cares what 97% of scientists think?  I’m willing to bet 100% of the greatest thinkers at the time agreed the world was flat.  Doesn’t make it so.  And when, exactly, did science become “settled” through consensus?  “We all agree so it must be true.”  Really?  Is that how it works now?  In the olden days science was settled by a consistent series of observed results.  If I drop this ball gravity is going to pull it down.  My son once told me that “for fun” he figured out exactly how long it would take for a quarter to hit the ground from his desk.  He calculated the trajectory and a few other fancy words and was able to predict with a high degree of accuracy how long it would take.

Cool, huh?

The reason there are no “gravity deniers” is because the science is settled.  There is such a thing as gravity.

Now, because I remembered the “Product of the Year” experience and I know that anybody and do almost anything with numbers, I decided to do a little digging to find the source of the 97% mantra.

Awake and Aware

That 97% figure comes from a website, where a guy ran an analysis of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers, 97% of which claimed that humanity is having an impact on the climate.

Well.  There you go.  There’s your consensus. The science is settled. Humans are the dominant factor in climate change.  Oh wait.  Not true.  The website acknowledges that 97% of the papers attribute some human impact; in truth less than 50% of those papers maintain that humans are the primary contributor of global warming.

Well okay, that’s not really a consensus, but it’s still damning.

Oh…but wait.

If asked, most people would say that a phrase like, “Less than 50%” would imply something in the 41-49% range.  But no.  It’s less than that.

How much less?  I’ll give you a hint.  If you guessed 65 papers out of the 12,000 reviewed, you would be right.

65.   Out of 12,000.

Now, I’m no mathematician, but I can tell you with certainty that that is indeed less than fifty percent.  Going out on a limb, I would say it is less than one percent.  But still, every Al Gore tirade, every screaming news story, and every global warming alarmist demands that if you dare question the “settled science” you are to be boiled in oil – or disposed of in a more environmentally friendly way.  Just as long as you lessen your carbon footprint.


While I’m on the subject, since when are there science “deniers?”  I would have thought only religion has deniers, disbelievers, or heretics. The truth is this really doesn’t have anything to with science.  Science is about evidence, plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with belief or disbelief.  In the olden days science was dependent upon skepticism. Without skepticism, you do not have science. Or am I wrong?

Unless you are completely ignorant of the facts (which is exactly how most liberals stay liberal) than I would say a consensus doesn’t exist.  In fact I would say any time a politician says “the science is settled” the science is indeed not settled.

TO BE CONTINUED…? (If I can wake up after that)


LIFEZILLA:  Me so ornery.  Me loathe you long time.


Be This Guy

Three Branches