Global warming protestors caught in the snow. See, it’s snowing, so they must be wrong!
And remember: no complaining about the direction of the stock market lately if it’s up today!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Profile
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Oh,
That
Liberal Media
CaliforniaRepublic.org
Linked by:
Best of the Web
The Corner
How Appealing
Hugh Hewitt
InstaPundit
Kausfiles
Power Line
The Volokh Conspiracy
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | Apr » | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
“And remember: no complaining about the direction of the stock market lately if it’s up today!”
Barack Obama has saved or created 6,763 points of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Comment by daleyrocks — 3/3/2009 @ 12:09 am
Wonderful!
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 3/3/2009 @ 12:24 am
Well, how long does the earth have to continue cooling before global warming alarmists admit they have no idea what they’re talking about? 10 years, where we’re at now, evidently isn’t a long enough cooling trend, so how about 15?
I’d like to know when we can all put this madness behind us.
Comment by Nessuno — 3/3/2009 @ 1:10 am
It’s cooling because 1 billion chinese are using freon air conditioners.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/3/2009 @ 1:16 am
Given that the Bush administration’s 8 years brought the worst performance of the stock market since the great depression, you ‘d think that conservatives and Republicans would be reluctant to hold up equities prices as a relevant measure of a president’s performance.
But that also assumes rationality. Big mistake, apparently.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/3/2009 @ 1:28 am
Exactly how many years of consecutive cooling have to pass before it’s no longer a non sequitur to point out that the planet’s temperature could rise or fall for reasons that can’t be attributed to human activity, such as has been happening before human beings even existed? Did those ice ages end because of the internal combustion engine?
I remember when I was in junior high school, I had to watch a video showing the parts of this country that would be underwater by 2050 because of the melting of the polar icecaps. One of those doomed parts of the country was New York City, which I don’t think anyone today is seriously suggesting will be underwater in the next 41 years. And that’s just one example of the countless Chicken Little predictions from the global-warming hysterians that no one’s buying anymore. We’ve all heard others.
I wonder at what point people are going to say, “Okay, the people on your side of the issue have said all these things that keep getting contradicted by the evidence… At this point, I’ve heard enough of the B.S. I’m not buying what you’re selling anymore. You’ve said too many things that just don’t wash.”
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 2:46 am
“the planet’s temperature could rise or fall for reasons that can’t be attributed to human activity.”
Scientists who are warning about the dangers of manmade climate change are not suggesting that the climate also changes for reasons not related to CO2 and other manmade gasses.
Rather, their point is that a manmade change could come on top of a non-manmade warming cycle and push the planet over the brink.
No one has ever suggested the climate doesn’t change as well on its own, though that fact seems to have become a convenient ingredient with which climate change deniers make false dichotomies.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/3/2009 @ 3:11 am
Yes, it is convenient to have some basis for saying that the other side’s argument is a total non sequitur. The planet has undergone the most extraordinary climate changes without it being referable to human activity. So the suggestion that human activity will push the planet over the brink (something that’s apparently happened many times anyway without human activity) is a huge non sequitur.
It’s like when people blame the Smoot-Hawley tariff for the Great Depression. The Depression started in 1929; Smoot-Hawley was passed in 1930. The Depression happened without Smoot-Hawley; it could easily have continued without it.
Of course, let’s not forget that the people on my side of the global-warming issue don’t have a track record of saying things like New York City and other parts of the country will be underwater by 2050 because of global warming. The people on your side of the issue have a crappy track record when it comes to making predictions.
Remember when the alarmists used to keep saying, “Last year was the hottest year on record,” year after year, to support their arguments? Now the look-what’s-happened-last-year (and indeed the last decade) apparently is just a blip. Seriously, how many blizzards will it take for you people to concede that maybe the global-warming skeptics might be on to something? Twenty more? Thirty more?
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 3:19 am
Given that the Bush administration’s 8 years brought the worst performance of the stock market since the great depression, you ‘d think that conservatives and Republicans would be reluctant to hold up equities prices as a relevant measure of a president’s performance.
Um, Bush isn’t a conservative, and his governance was not conservative. Conservatives were complaining loudly about lots of issues, including economic policy, throughout his presidency. You really don’t know anything at all, do you, Hax?
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 3:23 am
(Takes off smoking jacket and tophat, dons red plaid hunting coat and cap with earflaps.) Now what do you expect me to believe? The deer playing on the frozen solid Des Plaines River for the second winter in a row, the village ice-scating pond which most of the time was empty because with wind chills of 30 below it’s too cold to skate, my through the roof heating bills, and speaking of roofs the ice-dams on mine, or Al Gore’s computer model?
Comment by nk — 3/3/2009 @ 3:32 am
Don’t believe your lying eyes, nk.
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 3:34 am
#12 nk: I denounce the obviously kapitalist running deer of the Des Plaines river!
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 3:53 am
Good thing I’m not a numerologist.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 3:54 am
?
The earth is cooling? You just broke the news to me.
Comment by Andrew — 3/3/2009 @ 3:58 am
A lot of years, Alan. Simple minds want simple answers, but climate isn’t simple, nor a short-term thing.
By the way, how many years of consecutive cooling have we experienced, as you claim? I wanna see a stat.
Comment by Andrew — 3/3/2009 @ 4:03 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
There. I’m not going to bother doing any more research for you to expose common knowledge.
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 4:13 am
#5: By what measure was it the worst?
And by “worst” do you mean the climb to the highest levels ever?
Or do you not remember the 1970s stagflation? or the crash in 1986? Or the recession that Carter so generously geve to Reagan?
Or now that we are where we were 12 years ago? Since Obama was elected, the market has fallen over 2000 points. Since last week, the market has fallen again.
Every time President Jughead or one of his advisers opens his mouth, the market tanks.
So I have this to say: “Tanks a lot, President Jughead!”
Comment by Dr. K — 3/3/2009 @ 4:13 am
The same numbers which, in the past, were used to declare a warming trend have shown a cooling trend since, I believe, 2001. The attempts to hide that fact have been remarkable — putting data from the northern hemisphere collected in September into the October numbers, for example — but have been caught out.
That you were unaware of this is no surprise.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 3/3/2009 @ 4:16 am
Oh, for God’s sake!
The entire AGW house of cards is based on a simple answer — “CO2 will increase global temperatures” — and short-term thinking!
Comment by Rob Crawford — 3/3/2009 @ 4:20 am
18: No, I think it’s since 1998.
Andrew, if you didn’t know that the Earth has been cooling for years now, then you must have your head planted very firmly up your ass.
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 4:21 am
#17 Dr K.: Please, Puh-leeeze! heed steve miller’s advice and don’t feed the trolls!
Alan, Rob Crawford~ I used to share some floor space with some researchers doing solar bolometry, who told me that their preliminary findings were that average solar luminosity had been decreasing over the four years that they had actually been measuring (which would have been 2002-6, at the time I talked to them). Nothing of any real substance there, but I found it interesting and would be curious to know what they have observed in the meantime.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 4:32 am
Warmers, it was over a thousand years ago Vikings landed and lived on Greenland. They grew crops and raised animals. They did all of this without the benefit of internal combustion engines. Nor did they have vast forrest to utilize as fuel for their fires. I suggest it must have been warmer then than it is now. Global warming is a hoax and if not, a boon to agriculture.
Comment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — 3/3/2009 @ 4:36 am
Notice how the liberals (think anti-capitalist) buy into the “global warming is caused by man” crap. Ruining America’s economy is their goal. Redistribute don’t earn. Raise taxes never cut spending.
I pray for my country.
Comment by krusher — 3/3/2009 @ 5:08 am
Our planet isn’t getting warmer. It simply isn’t. It’s long past the time where we should admit that the provable predictions of the global warming believers have been proven wrong.
Pollution is still bad, but now that all these profiteers have tried to scare us that we were facing armageddon of warmth when the planet keeps getting colder, a lot of people can barely take environmentalism seriously.
Global warming alarmists have harmed the environmental movement tremendously.
I don’t like cancer or filthy and water. I want to see clean energy become the norm. But I realize that the planet isn’t getting hotter, and that it would be a good thing if the planet did get hotter.
Comment by Joco — 3/3/2009 @ 5:22 am
The whole AGW issue is primarily political. Folks with absolutely no background or training in science are holding forth—without keeping track of what “their own side” has been saying for years.
Such as:
Hmm. Saint Al said “..the debate is over…” I thought. Also “..the planet has a fever…” Look at the claims in “An Inconvenient Truth.” And he has a Nobel Prize and everything. We’ll leave out his freakin’ hypocrisy for now.
Nope, this is all about governmental control over industrial development, world wide.
But I do enjoy how the AGW were hysterical on the subject five years ago, with their claims of “the hottest year on record.” Now, they get very quiet when the climate shows a cooling trend.
Not to worry. James Hansen continues to throw verbal bombs. Go look at what he had to say about coal fired power plants in the UK recently, for example.
And now we get told that climate is complicated? Ya think?
Strangely, though, the “complicated” business seems to serve the political agenda of the AGW crew.
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 5:23 am
#24 Joco:
Huh? Not exactly sure what you mean here? If you mean “pollution is a bad thing” that we shouldn’t engage in as a practice; I agree wholeheartedly. OTOH, if you mean that this place is so polluted that its bad for childrenz and puppy dogs and butterflies, let’s remember that there was a time in this country when rivers would catch on fire because they were so polluted.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 5:27 am
Around the same time you had the peak of the largest pre-Columbian culture in North America — the Mississippians. Their definite settlements spanned from the lower Mississippi up to along the Missouri, and from the southern Carolinas west to Oklahoma. They didn’t have a unified political system, except maybe around the St. Louis region, but that’s still an impressively large area for a culture without livestock or the wheel.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 3/3/2009 @ 5:29 am
#25 Eric Blair:
Hear tell that he’s in my neck of the woods at the moment. Tempted to go throw some snowbalss at his ass.
As JD would have it, Teh Narrative©.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 5:30 am
A cold day in winter is worth a lot for climate measurement. Specially if something political happens that day.
Comment by imdw — 3/3/2009 @ 5:31 am
People that study the activity on the sun say we might be in for a cooling spell.
That wouldn’t mean there is no man made impacts, it would just mean that larger forces trump puny ones.
The larger question is one of cause and effect and the possible misapplication and mischaracterizaton of data. Data that is supposedly unassailable.
Carbon emissions up at the same time ice was melting means we must have been causing it all?
Or were we just busily matching our data to an underlying climate trend?
If the sun continues to cool its activity, the carbon emission data will decouple from the temperature data because of the larger forces in play.
Then the trick will be to convince the world that science shows emissions are making the cold spell “warmer” which may or may not be true, but it will be a harder sell.
Harnessing your narrative and conclusions to the underlying forces in the universe is a great way to make $$.
Al Gore is lucky he was able to have done that for a time
Comment by SteveG — 3/3/2009 @ 5:32 am
Here is an overview by a fellow trained to look at data, not politics:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html
The rest of his site, and his current posts, are well worth your time on this subject.
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 5:45 am
No Smoking Hot Spot.
I’m all for lowering pollution too, but CO2 is not pollution, nor is it responsible for climate change.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 5:53 am
What? That enormous ball of fire in the sky might have something to do with the temperature of this planet (and the other ones, like Mars)? You don’t say.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 5:55 am
What exactly would get better? There’s a small argument to be made that Canadian shipping routes will prosper because the pack ice is melted for longer portions of the year, and I could see how people living in, say, Chicago in February might be all like, “I’m too cold! I want to run around in my bikini like people in Costa Rica!”
But really? Global warming trends a good thing?
Try to separate for a moment climate trends and weather trends. That’s the whole point of the facetious article you’re “agreeing” with.
Comment by Erin — 3/3/2009 @ 6:06 am
Erin, you assume way too much about what I said, and it’s pointless to argue with people who do that.
Most of our usable land is too cold to use well. This is obvious.
Comment by Joco — 3/3/2009 @ 6:08 am
ew1, I meant that pollution is a bad thing.
But it’s also quite bad, period. You should travel more if you don’t think the pollution you describe doesn’t exist in America anymore, or more importantly, all over the planet.
but that isn’t what I was saying. Using coal instead of nuclear kills a lot of Americans every year. Pollution is bad whether or not it leads to global warming.
Comment by Joco — 3/3/2009 @ 6:11 am
Historical evidence says yes.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 3/3/2009 @ 6:27 am
All I know is that I’m freezing my ass off. I want my global warming and I want it now!
But, wait, if Chicago warms up that means less gas burned for heat which means less carbon dioxide which means it will get cold again. Sigh, it’s all just a big merry-go-round.
Comment by nk — 3/3/2009 @ 6:32 am
There are those who claim that because it is not the case that every year has been warmest than the previous one, then warming is not taking place.
Have you seen a graph in any statistic in any field in which the line keeps going up or down without variation?
Comment by Andrew — 3/3/2009 @ 6:36 am
Plants, also known as food. They like heat (and they require the “pollution” now known as CO2.) More plant growth means more carbon removed from the atmosphere and replaced with oxygen. And it means more food. But then there’s the downside.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 6:37 am
I have seen more global warming piled up in my driveway the last 3 years than I ever wish to see again.
Come on folks, get with Teh Narrative. It is no longer referred to as global warming. It is now called the global climate change crisis, otherwise known as weather.
This allows the alarmists to still blame man for warming and cooling.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 6:41 am
Andrew – how many years of cooling would it take to convince you that it is not warming?
I have never seen a good answer to this question. What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 6:44 am
Anthropomorphic climate change is a useful fiction created to justify a new source of government revenue. Get people afraid and they will gladly give you their money.
That’s all it is. That’s all it ever was.
Comment by Amphipolis — 3/3/2009 @ 6:54 am
#36 Joco:
Really?
I never said or even implied that pollution no longer exists in America: my point is that there has been a significant reduction in pollution here, particularly in the last 30-40 years. Very noticeable to me in my travels about the country, anyway.
All over the planet is a slightly different matter. Wealthy nations can afford not to pollute, developing nations can’t. Only their prosperity will enable them to stop polluting.
#39:
Not from any source that’s trustworthy. If I did, I would immediately suspect I was being fed a load of bullshit. Especially if that graph purported to quantify data from a chaotic system.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 6:54 am
#42 JD:
Why, the one I am most comfortable at, wherever I go, of course!
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 6:58 am
You like graphs, Andrew? How about this graph? Or this one.
What makes an upturn any more telling than a downturn?
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 7:10 am
The planet is indeed getting warmer. Ask Al Gore.
Comment by Emperor7 — 3/3/2009 @ 7:15 am
It’s much like tobacco, only without any evidence of harm. Imagine if everyone actually quit smoking tomorrow and the tobacco taxes collected fell to zero.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 7:20 am
Pablo, you are wasting your time. Andrew is just following Teh Narrative, and I can promise you that he has never, ever, read and digested the data at your links (or the summary website I cited).
It’s much more important what some guy on television says…because it fits what he believes.
You know, if folks were really believers in AGW, they would be pushing like crazy for nuclear power. But notice that nuclear is not a good option, either.
Politics above all things, as usual.
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 7:20 am
Ah, but that would strangle the new carbon based economy in it’s crib.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 7:22 am
Oh, wait. That’s the Green Economy, right? My bad.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 7:23 am
That goes both ways. Whenever there’s an unseasonably warm day, we get cries of global warming.
For what it’s worth, the earth is in a warming trend right now. It’s had hundreds of warming trends over its existence. But all of a sudden, it’s man that’s causing global warming. I find that incredibly narcissistic.
Just because they make universal remote controls doesn’t mean we can control the universe.
Comment by Steverino — 3/3/2009 @ 7:25 am
#49 Eric Blair:
BRW, who is that moron on TV that’s spouting the nonsense about the extinction of polar bears, anyway?
Obviously not spent any time in Churchill lately.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 7:27 am
Just remember – it it’s too warm, it’s GW. If it’s too cold, still GW. They fit any current climatological state into their fugue of GW, 24/7.
Have you seen a graph in any statistic in any field in which the line keeps going up or down without variation?
Andrew, you ignorant git – Hansen recently admitted that his hallowed “hockey stick” measurement of the earth’s temperature going inexorably upward was seriously flawed, and the revised stats (previously posted) show either stable or declining temperatures over the past three decades. You receive a failing grade in science and logic, again.
Comment by Dmac — 3/3/2009 @ 7:47 am
Clarification – I agree wholeheartedly about nuclear power replacing the coal – fired plants we have presently; the enviro movement’s continuing efforts to block new nuclear plant construction is truly heinous. And the air pollution coming over from 3rd world countries like India and China is becoming monstrous, which leads to all other types of pollution, including fresh water supplies and our oceans. Speaking of which, the pollution of our oceans is rapidly deteriorating to the point of no return, where you can view hundred mile – long trash monstrosities in the middle of the Pacific. These are all worthwhile and urgently – needed problems that need to be addressed immediately, while the GW canard is just more wastage of resources better used elsewhere.
Comment by Dmac — 3/3/2009 @ 7:53 am
Skeptics of the AGW hypothesis do not believe that any cold front disproves the warming theory.
That’s a gross misrepresentation.
Skeptics get a lot of amusement out of the Al Gore Effect ( global warming protests/events accompanied by a record cold or snow storm ) because it has been AGW advocates who cite to each hot spell, hurricane or brushfire as “proof” of global warming catastrophe.
Comment by SPQR — 3/3/2009 @ 8:25 am
SPQR – I think my all-time favorite was when algore was going to NY, I believe, to give a speech about the horrors of AGW, and they were experiencing either record cold temps, or record snowfall. Which was obviously the result of global warming.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 8:30 am
If Obama really cares at all about climate change, why did he not even mention nuclear power in his speech? And why is he blocking Yucca Mountain?
Obama cares about new taxes (fees?). He cares about Nevada’s electoral votes. He cares about the opinion of the Sierra Club. But he does NOT care about the climate.
Comment by Amphipolis — 3/3/2009 @ 8:39 am
Don’t forget my personal favorite: blaming tsunamis on global warming!
Comment by Rob Crawford — 3/3/2009 @ 8:39 am
Rob C – And increased hurricane activity. And decreased hurricane activity. And increased strength of hurricanes. And record snowfall.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 8:41 am
Lots of people have made the following observation: our leaders are not acting like “global climate change” is a crisis. Like Al Gore’s fancy new houseboat.
Once the AGW politicians act like it is a crisis, and give things up themselves (instead of asking other people to give things up), then we can take it seriously.
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 8:41 am
Eric – My stated goal is to create a carbon footprint greater than that of algore’s.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 8:48 am
But Baracky is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to wage element-ocide on those little carbons, the mostest evil things EVAH.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 8:49 am
JD, that is a big goal. Much luck to you!
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 8:53 am
Let me see if I have this straight, climatologists can not accurately predict the weather 10-15 days from now, yet they want me to believe they are absolutely correct about the weather 10-15 years from now.
OK.
Comment by ML — 3/3/2009 @ 8:55 am
EB – problem is that one has to be one of those evil rich people to create a carbon footprint anywhere close to what algore does, and Baracky’s failed economic policies are making it hard to move ahead in the world.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 8:56 am
Some logic-challenged persons here have attempted to say that the courageous defenders of the environment are unreasonable when they associate global warming with BOTH hot summers and cold winters. Do I need to remind you people that the most famous Al Gore diagram was called the… HOCKEY STICK? And hockey is played on… ice?
CLUE! Obviously, Al Gore had anticipated these hard winters and declining temperatures long ago. And therefore his climate model is vindicated!
Comment by Gesundheit — 3/3/2009 @ 8:58 am
ML, even more amusing is that they can’t get the weather of a millenia ago correct.
Comment by SPQR — 3/3/2009 @ 9:00 am
The ice caps on Mars are melting, too–but there are no cars on Mars.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 3/3/2009 @ 9:10 am
Like Al Gore’s fancy new houseboat.
When I lived briefly in Aspen, I had to endure endless lectures on teh evil Bush and his refusal to admit that GW was a human – caused problem; then said lecturers immediately drove to the private airport in their Hummers, to fly to Gstadd on their private Lear Jets, to live in their 5th homes. I never got over those episodes.
Comment by Dmac — 3/3/2009 @ 9:16 am
SPQR
But I thought those ice core samples told them everything they ever wanted to know about everything.
Comment by ML — 3/3/2009 @ 9:17 am
ML, evidently cherry picking data tells them everything they want to know …
Comment by SPQR — 3/3/2009 @ 9:18 am
I thought it was telling that on last night’s Special Report (FoxNews), Brit Hume did a commentary on AGW, and specifically pointed out that the computer models, when utilizing historical data, cannot (and do not) predict current temperatures; and yet, we are to believe that these models accurately predict future climate trends.
He seemed skeptical.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS — 3/3/2009 @ 9:29 am
There’s always arson, JD.
Comment by Pablo — 3/3/2009 @ 9:35 am
Arson is more a tool of the peple that love Mother Gaia, Pablo.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 9:38 am
There have been two new Red Spots on Jupiter recently, too. One of them got sucked into the old Red Spot, AFAIK the other is still around.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 3/3/2009 @ 9:44 am
The sun has nothing to do with AGW you deniers of Teh Consensus!
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 10:04 am
But Dr. K, claims don’t have to be based on facts or evidence. It’s the general idea and feelings that count!
At the risk of my own confirmation bias, these karmic incidences where the ‘global warming’ event du jour is postponed due to inclement weather do make me smile. Let’s just say that, when I had more pipes freeze this winter than in the prior 15 years, I wasn’t thinking of Mr. Gore.
Comment by carlitos — 3/3/2009 @ 10:04 am
Comment by Alan — 3/3/2009 @ 3:19 am
The Crash was in 1929, but was not the start of The Depression, but was the start of a normal recession caused by a financial panic (which was how it was described in contemporary reporting).
Smoot-Hawley, along with other restrictive legislation passed in reaction to the Crash, threw the world economy into The Depression, that FDR’s mis-steps prolonged for 7+ years.
You need to read Amity Schlae’s The Forgotten Man.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS — 3/3/2009 @ 10:24 am
It was 87 degrees and sunny in southern AZ yesterday. Must be global warming.
Comment by PatAZ — 3/3/2009 @ 11:14 am
Not to be an insufferable pedant but anthropomorphic relates to human appearance/shape and climate, whether warming or cooling, doesn’t exhibit this characteristic. Anthropogenic refers to human causation. We know what you mean here, but the meaning of words does matter–most of the time.
Comment by MikeD — 3/3/2009 @ 11:45 am
It’s currently 29 degrees in Chicago – another record cold opening for a month during this winter. Must be…
Comment by Dmac — 3/3/2009 @ 11:48 am
#69 Official Internet Data Office:
Sorry about that, me and a buddy used to go 4-wheelin’ out there on the weekends.
Comment by EW1(SG) — 3/3/2009 @ 12:10 pm
How much environmental damage has occurred due to the JPL rovers?
We’ll be able to see their tracks in the fragile Martian terascape for eons.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS — 3/3/2009 @ 12:16 pm
Just wondering. When was the last time a global warming protest took place on a really hot day?
Comment by Joshua — 3/3/2009 @ 12:41 pm
AD – I have no idea why, buit that reminded me of a time where I was reading some Leftist arguement against the border fence, which was premised on the environmental impact to the migratory patterns of some lizard and some kind of desert squirrel-type creature.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 12:46 pm
I was just ringing an old bell.
The enviros are still complaining that they can find tank-tracks in the Mojave Desert left from training excercises of Patton’s Third Army in WW-2.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS — 3/3/2009 @ 12:52 pm
amphipolis: don’t forget power, they can’t get enough of that either.
pablo: then they would just move on to the next ” liberal invented crisis”.
everyone else: isn’t the earth just one big ” greenhouse”?. and doesn’t all vegetation, that is, plants, trees, grass need CO2 to live?. and if it’s gets too hot, then the earth cools itself. doesn’t nature itself teach us that everything works together. so wouldn’t the earth work with the sun to make sure life is sustainable on this planet. some states earlier, more CO2 means more plant life, which means more O2 for us. which also means more blowhards like algore.
Comment by mr. falcone — 3/3/2009 @ 2:09 pm
“Conservatives” have a long history of opposing environmental protection.
If we had listened to them, the U.S. would be more polluted than China by now.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/3/2009 @ 2:09 pm
Prove it, Hack.
Comment by SPQR — 3/3/2009 @ 2:10 pm
The loyal foot soldier marches bravely forth with Teh Narrative.
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 2:23 pm
Boooosh tried to put arsenic and mercury in the drinking water f kids and the elderly !!!!!
Comment by JD — 3/3/2009 @ 2:26 pm
A fine example, JD, the last drinking water standards bill reduced allowable standards for some compounds without any scientific basis for the new, ridiculously low, levels and just increased the costs for local water districts to no real benefit.
Comment by SPQR — 3/3/2009 @ 2:29 pm
#88 mr. falcone
[M]ore CO2 means more plant life, which means more O2 for us. [W]hich also means more blowhards like algore.
Aieee! Scary too-vivid cause-and-effect.
Comment by m — 3/3/2009 @ 3:23 pm
Funny. I keep thinking about the wonderful track record socialist nations have with environmentalism.
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 3:28 pm
Oh please.
Do not give the troll oxygen.
Comment by steve miller — 3/3/2009 @ 3:29 pm
Well, steve, I keep thinking about that report that the internet creates all this greenhouse gas. So I am doing my part to hasten the apocalypse.
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/3/2009 @ 3:36 pm
Well, there’s hastening and there’s full-bore blow-out troll-stuffing.
Comment by steve miller — 3/3/2009 @ 3:40 pm
Trolly took a yoga class in order to give itself blow jobs. Look how well it’s doing!
Comment by Dmac — 3/3/2009 @ 3:51 pm
ha, ha, quick everbody stop googling!. wasn’t Kyoto a way of blaming evil industrial America for global warming?.
Comment by mr. falcone — 3/3/2009 @ 4:27 pm
didn’t google’s crash last week save us from oblivion.
Comment by mr. falcone — 3/3/2009 @ 4:28 pm
Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 3/3/2009 @ 12:52 pm
I remember in a speech class in college; one of the presentations I did was on the first gulf war and how wrong it was. One of my points was that the tank tracks were causing damage to the environment.
It makes me laugh now to recall all the stupid ideas I fell for back then.
The professor loved the speech.
There was a link at Hotair to an article on Global warming being on hold; titled as such. The article expressed that “science” doesn’t know why, despite C02 increasing, the temps are cooling. The article closes at the end with a quote from a “scientist” assuring that soon it will all come to a fiery head and destroy us all.
Summary: They don’t know why it is cooler now but they magically KNOW it will be warmer later.
I’d say the wheels are off the GW bandwagon. It will be interesting to see how the debate (cap and trade etc..) gets shaped in congress from here on out. You’d think the economy would kill the prospect but I’m not holding my CO2.
Comment by Mr B — 3/3/2009 @ 4:49 pm
Oh, please. See, average temperatures haven’t budged in a decade when they were supposed to take off like the end of a hockey stick, so they must be wrong. It’s snowing in March, less than one week before we all go on “summer time,” and this oddity nicely coincides with their otherwise silly protest, so those of us with a sense of humor can and should savor the irony.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/3/2009 @ 6:12 pm
I’ll give you AGW if you can assure me that any reasonable solution won’t run into some other protest.
http://www.windstop.org/
Comment by Xmas — 3/4/2009 @ 6:13 am
AGW is just marxist attack on industrialized countries, but especially the USA. It has no basis in fact and is just rumor mongering. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air is at historic lows, the amount of carbon dioxide needed for fully functional plant life is about 1500 ppm, whereas today we are at one fifth of that amount. (Greenhouses use the 1500 ppm to optimize their growing). Given that animals and flowering plants coexisted, it is reasonable that a 1500 ppm or even half that could have no deleterious effects on either humans or animals or plants. The whole GW scare is a travesty, and the people who believe this nonsense have such open minds that their brains fell out long ago.
One can go to gatewaypundit blogspot for a recap of all the Global Cooling that’s gone on during the past decade. My money has always been on that strange fiery object in the sky as the key regulator of climate on this planet and not some ephemeral gas that happens in some cases to be a byproduct of that libtard bete noir, the internal combustion engine.
The SCOTUS decision labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant will go down in history along with Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott and Roe v Wade as a stuuuuuuuupid and unsupportable and laughable decision by that Court.
Comment by eaglewingz08 — 3/4/2009 @ 2:10 pm