Richard Glover is an Australian Broadcaster and Sydney Morning Herald Op Ed Columnist.  The following statements are from a piece that the newspaper published by him, yesterday morning:

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimeters of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …

OK, maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one’s opponents is not ideal. But, my God, these people are frustrating. You just know that in 20 years’ time, when the costs of our inaction are clear, the climate deniers will become climate-denial-deniers. ”Who me? Oh, no, I always believed in it. Yes, it’s hard to understand why people back then were so daft. It’s so much more costly to stop it now.”

That’s why the tattoo has its appeal.

The Mark of the Beast?

Leonard Weinstein, ScD, published an article on 4/25/2009 titled Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem. 

Here are some excerpts:

A hypothesis has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature.

…In order to support a hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the hypothesis, and the predictions then need to either happen or be falsified. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a hypothesis, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the hypothesis is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his hypothesis of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and helped raise the concept to the status of theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example, weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions.

However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some trends due to specific forcing factors, like any respectable hypothesis, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to being reasonably valid.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining data that is supposed to be supporting the predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the stated predictions, the AGW hypothesis must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

…The final question is what prediction has the AGW hypothesis made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the hypothesis. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much falsifying evidence for the AGW hypothesis as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also very likely some contribution to the present temperature variations from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it is almost certainly a small effect and not a driver of future climate.

Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic AGW hypothesis fails.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney disagreed with Professor Weinstein, just last Friday:

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”…

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.

Man-caused Global Warming has been revealed as nothing more that a con game, designed to make money for its investors and to bring power and prestige to its prophets.

Al Gore has turned out to be the P.T. Barnum of our time.  And, for Mitt Romney to make a statement like this, does nothing but illuminate a dangerous naivete and questionable judgement.