Conspiracy Theory? by Leilani Münter, Race car driver, environmental activist.

Red Shift;
Since you made a slurring and slanderous indirect reference to me, I'll return the favour. Evidently you think by shuffling stereotypes around, so I'll make a guarantee and wager that I know more about science in general, and any and every particular science from biology to astrophysics to paleobiology, than you do.

DRamsey has it pretty much right on.
bb0Tin and jkf have it pretty much right off.

Allegations about "dirty fracking" have been disproven by every EPA or court investigation, but are lodged like stones in the minds of the ignorant.

You said "Since we can't perform a double-blind experiment with the earth, the only test of climate change theory is its ability to make accurate predictions."
OK then.
I am going to do a double-blind test on you. I will bindfold you and place you in a room. I will also blind-fold myself and place myself in the same room...with a gun. I will then start shooting in your general direction. If you are sensible and ask me to stop, I will protest. I will dismiss your concerns about the bullets that you hear being fired and heading your way. I will dismiss all evidence and reasoning that you use with the statement "until you can tell when and where each bullet will hit, I don't belive that you are in danger".
As stupid as the above should appear, it is the same reasoning that you are using. Climate Change is real or not real. It is not decided by theory. It is explained by theory. It is decided by evidence and there is copious evidence from many thousands of studies, from scientists all over the world, accumulated over decades, covering many different physical affects. There are simple statistics such as the record high temperatures in the USA are now double the record lows, where they used to be equal. That the cost of climate disasters are now 3X what they were a few decades ago, but the non-Climate related disasters are not. I could list as least 10 different lines of evidence on different physical systems. If you interested in these statistics and physical evidence then vlikerize buffoon and read the thread..
But back to the topic. You stating an opinion as fact has no merit unless you follow it up with evidence.

The evidence just keeps on coming. This is from this morning describing the record warmest November we just had:
Note that the link includes a link to the data.


The answer was hidden right in plain sight and It’s so obvious in such a way that could not figure out.meaning of your license plate!

Thanks Leilani for explaining your license plate puzzle. Very interesting indeed!!!

"Warmest XX on record" is pure statistical stupidity. There is about a .7°C/Century longterm trend since the 1800s, the Little Ice Age, coldest period since the Big Ice Age in 10,000BC. The latest year or decade is at the highest point, still lower than the 10K-yr average. Duh! Flattening at the peak leaves you still at the same level.

The original study (Cowtan and Way, 2013) making the revision claim has been widely and thoroughly debunked. And Romm and Ramstorf have records of serial alarmist error which are almost unmatched.

And this year was even lower.

Brian, are you scientist? There are an overwhelming majority of people who are trained in this profession who assert to the contrary of what you say. You know more than me? Sure, that might indeed be. But the conclusions you seem to draw from what you do know seem to be rather insipid, especially when considering scientist's opinions.

Prepare for ice age? Tell you what, in a billion years, the earth's crust will be metalized by a red giant sun. Start digging a hole now, Brian! Don't need to worry about the present, no?


I didn't read the article from the NRDC as they are too extreme and selfish to be trusted. Even though I don't disagree that methane may trap more c02, the net effect is still lower GHG emissions. I have no problem with regulating fracking including provisions to limit methane emissions even though it's possible that it's being overstated:

Fracking May Emit Less Methane Than Previous Estimates

I'll reiterate my main point: fracking has greatly benefited our economy (we'd go into an a recession instantly if it was halted nationally) while at the same time helping the environment, making the U.S. stronger by lessening dependence on unfriendly countries and it will enable us to help our friends at the expense of our enemies. Rooftop solar in particular costs taxpayers money and only benefits the few who use enough power to make it cost effective. Those on the bottom end of the economy pay for it but get no benefit. Extremists like the NRDC only care about their agenda even if it hurts 90% of the population. The good news is that in a few years most people will have viable EV choices, wind and solar (at least utility scale) will be at grid parity and the smart grid will be well on it's way to being implemented and not just a dream. Don't hurt so many people until then by letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Volkerize buffoon. BrianH does not engage in factual discussion but cherrypicked data or rhetoric. But for the record, it is currently accepted that the number of tornadoes is not well predicted by the models, so no argument there. Pity that the temperature, ice melt, deluges, droughts, ocean acidity etc are all going the wrong way.


"There are an overwhelming majority of people who are trained in this profession who assert to the contrary of what you say."

What percentage of these people have some vested interest in supporting the GHG/climate change viewpoint? Do they receive funding or grants for research to study the effects of climate change? I'd note that one leading advocate, Al Gore, has done very well for himself.

FWIW I think the GHG issue in the U.S. will become a non-issue as EVs in general and Tesla in particular continue to improve and succeed in the marketplace and as wind, solar, nuclear and the smart grid improve, with dramatic changes over the next 3 years. You should be concerned nearly exclusively with China and India if you are a GHG/climate change believer.

Brian may be partially right. I am not an expert in global warming but read a lot with an open mind. Apparently global warming does not increase the number of tornadoes and hurricanes but it does increase the severity. Not much of a source for comfort.

@redshift Only 97% of scientists believe in global warming. The other 3% are most likely on someone's payroll.

Brian if you wish us to take you seriously perhaps you should at the very least state your scientific credentials. I get the same impression as bi0tin that you make up things as you'll along. I see that in many opinions you express. While you may be very knowledgable in many fields and appear to be a strong supporter of Tesla you seem to have some very strong opinions on a car you don't even own.

I really don't care who is 100% right. No one can be 100% right. All I know is we have only one chance we better not blow it. It takes billions of years of evolution for us to get here. There were millions of species that did not make it. Don't forget the process is still going on.

@ Brian H,

I don't believe you are in a position to dispute the findings of those much more qualified than you. This is exactly what I mean by people thinking science is opinion. It's absolutely not opinion when you look at it objectively, but opinion gets in the way when you view climate change as nothing more than a political talking point.

Forget about climate change altogether. You know that brown ring around your city? That's called smog. Again, forget about global climate change for a moment. That brown ring of smog, primarily caused by coal fires and transportation emissions, is not healthy. It contains carcinogens that have been shown to cause cancer, acid rain, etc. We can all agree that this smog is not healthy for anyone, right? Air is supposed to be clear, not brown.

Cleaning up the grid, moving to sustainable transport and sustainable energy overall will help remove this brown ring around your city. Moving in that direction makes our air healthier to breathe. We all want that, right? So this discussion really has nothing to do with whether or not your politics allow you to "believe" in a global climate change. If you agree that cleaning up the air is a good thing, then you are automatically in support of green and sustainable energy as well as transportation. If global warming is real - and it is - the planet's climate will benefit as well.

So why not focus on an area where we all can agree? Cleaning up the air by cleaning up our vehicle emissions is a good thing for everyone, especially our children.

+1 @AR
If BrianH can't agree with that, I'd be flabbergasted.

Apologies for piling on Brain H, but perhaps he should just give this topic a bit of a rest for a while. After all, in 200 years we will all know who was right, at the time when it really mattered to change the course of history ... oh, wait.

For the record, I am on the side of caution in the case of global warming by human agency. Once we tip over the iceberg, well ... there won't be much of a come-back for LOOOOOOOONG TIME. Like, eons. Like, the remainder of human history. Like, let's all hope someone has an escape route to Mars. Or SOMETHING. Any ideas?

/Soap box mode off

"hope someone has an escape route to Mars"
Elon is working on it! He want's to die there, just not on impact.

WE all knew that. Just forgot to add the proper smiley :-)
And as Elon always says, rocketry is, ironically, the only exceptional use for fossil fuel vs electric.


Ok, I accept your point about regulating to reduce methane emissions from fracking, but for me the potential to contaminate groundwater resources will never sway me to support fracking. We can live without oil but we can't survive without freshwater, and that is a resource in jeopardy from this activity that needs more attention and action.

Regarding the broader issue of climate change I stand with the science and observations documenting the gradual warming of our planet including melting glaciers, diminishing ice packs in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, ocean acidification, increasing fires, massive storm events (Sandy, Haiyan, etc.) droughts, etc. This recent article by Dr. James Hansen documents the facts and problem much better than I ever could (

Bb0tin, how do you like your car? How long have you been driving? If you do not mind I would love to know what you do for a living. Your opinions appear to be Western European, is this right. Thanks

I love my Tesla's just that it is only on paper at the moment as I am in New Zealand and we will not get delivery until 2014. I have been following Tesla from the beginning and never thought I would have the opportunity to actually get one myself. I have been driving for 40 years; in the early days sometimes irresponsibly due to lack of thought about the possible consequences for others (hence my comment in another thread about snow tires). I earn a crust as a computer programmer and try to apply the same fact based reasoning I use for my work to other problems as well.

bb0tin, thank you... You have the best wines on the planet, in my opinion. Pinot Nior and Sauvignon Blanc are my favorites.. I thought you were from a wonderful place .

New Zealand is a pretty cool place to live, but unfortunately we have to fight harder and harder to keep it like that. Our small population had let us get away with practices that have now caught up with us eg: 60% of our waterways are now considered unsafe for swimming. We also currently have a right wing government who cares little for the environment :-(

Mel & bb0tin - get a room!

haha :P

bb0tin, sorry to say we are killing our estuaries and rivers here in Florida. The federal government , big sugar along with people the do not want to upgrade there septic tanks all share the blame.

The people trying to clean things are both right and left wing.


"What percentage of these people have some vested interest in supporting the GHG/climate change viewpoint?"

There might indeed be as there might be a few people on both sides with vested interests. Both sides. But, for the majority % quoted in the article to be all having vested interest is quite incredulous and goes against common sense.

Science is not political. However, in this country, its become so twisted now, that science is confused with politics, conspiracy theories, even religion.

In my worst german accent 'I am vorking on getting a vroom' ;-)


"You should be concerned nearly exclusively with China and India if you are a GHG/climate change believer"

Sure, I am worried. We can only show them the way, really. Beyond that, there is zilch we can do.

As someone once said,"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."

How about we leave the eff'n oil in the ground.

Even if there was no link between our use of oil and climate change, we'd be better off using renewable sources of energy.

Beyond climate change there are geopolitical considerations. We're giving money to regimes who don't like us. We spend billions maintaining a military presence in unfriendly places to ensure the flow of oil.

There are health issues associated with car and diesel exhaust like lung cancer which kill thousands of Americans every year. With fewer people smoking, air pollution has been named as the leading cause of lung cancer by the World Health Organization.

This thread long ago left the subject of the original post on my Huffington Post article, but I just wanted to say "kia ora" to the kiwis on the board. I am married to a New Zealander from north of Auckland. JAFA ;)

X Deutschland Site Besuchen