Global Warming Causing Dangerously Low Temperatures
February 13th, 2008 by joe
With fear-mongering faux science, everything is possible:
The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference…
Prabhu said the cold wave that swept Maharashtra and other parts of India recently could be attributed to the phenomenon of global warming.
This is how, 1984-style, it happens. Facts are no impediment to ideology. The collectivist, anti-capitalist, war on personal freedom which is at the essence of the fake “science” ideology underlying the global warming scam will not be deterred by evidence. This is because it has been a lie from the outset and evidence was never part of the calculation.
Those promoting the snake oil of “global warming” are simply attempting to enact changes in public policy which would further the goals of the collectivists. Expanding the reach of the global warming lie gives more power to those who want to tell everyone else how to live.
While, incidentally, they continue to live however they want.
And now, as the facts in this sorry episode in false ideology come full circle, we are faced with the next step: Convincing the people that the ideologists know better than their own lying eyes.
This is known as the big lie.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 at 2:13 am and is filed under Technology/Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Just heard the other day about the sun being behind in its regulated sun-spot activity. When this type cycle goes long, as it is now doing, there tends to be about a 100 year range of colder than normal temperatures. I guess this scientific understanding is really coming from the “world-is-flat” society and that this known phenomenom is really from centuries of global warming. How could they have been so wrong for so long?
February 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
If it was not for George W. Bush I’m sure the land bridge between Asia and Alaska would still be humming with activity.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
oh my god. have you even looked at the global warming literature? it’s incredible how easy it is to poke holes in something that you know nothing about!
warming causes ice to melt, more cold water dilutes the warm gulf stream, which ends up causing colder weather in places. that’s the theory.
and no, scoffing wont make you any less ignorant. Why don’t you try reading up on it before you critique it like you’re some kind of expert?
“Those promoting the snake oil of “global warming” are simply attempting to enact changes in public policy which would further the goals of the collectivists.”
clearly god has hardened your heart; there is no rational justification for that level of paranoia.
and why did you link to that article about policy-making in light of CCS, anyway?
in general, what are your thoughts on the government taking action to protect American citizens and interests even though information is limited?
…and how’s this
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/progressiveinvestor.stocks/?CFID=42003760&CFTOKEN=68243602
for anti-capitalist.
seriously, it’s anti-capitalist to waste time securing your place on the conspiracy-theory fringe when there’s money to be made!
February 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Global warming has very little to do with anything related to science, our environment or weather patterns. It is all about political power. It is about scaring the crap out of the American people in order to further an aggenda of increased political power. It is about creating greater influence and at some point control over the means of production by those who have either failed by other means or are impatient with the rate of socialisms expansion on this continent. After all this is where the money is hence the epicenter of blame.
By using scientific socialism the collectivists have for sometime been ginning up yet another global catastrophe that can be used to bluggone Americas capitalist system into submission. Global warming is about one thing and one thing only , extracting billions of dollars from American coprorations and taxpayers in order to further finance the nanny state. This is all about the redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.
Remember the first global crisis ? just a short 30 to 40 years ago we were heading for another ice age. The environmental ninnies, policy wonks and the main stream press were convinced we would be encassed in Ice by the mid 1980’s. We were all going to freeze to death. It said so on the cover of Time magazine so it must be true. It never happened.
Now the planet has a fever and we are all slowly going to roast to death like pigs on a spit. Oh the horror.
This whole thing is the biggest Scam in world history. We are now engaged in up to our necks the boondoggle of all boondoggles. This too will prove to be a load of crap after we piss away a few billion dollars.
Environmental Socialism at its best or should I say worst.
Al Gore you nitwit call your office.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
impressive, just a bit more honing and your message will be ready for the street corner! keep at it!
but dude, who are you talking to? did you even follow that link I posted? Do you have RLS, or is your post just a knee-jerk reaction? and what’s all this with “collectivists” all of a sudden?
you could be right about one thing, maybe the first doomsday scam designed to control the masses was in the 80’s –that’s the 180s! talking Book of Revelation! Ha!
McCain hasn’t even been declared the official winner and already we’re seeing the effects of this conservative schism; separating the wheat from the chaff! If there’s a rational cell in your skull, why not use it to answer my question?:
In general, what are your thoughts on the government taking action, based on limited information, to protect American citizens and interests?
February 13th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
WOW!!!
G.Stone said;
“It is about scaring the crap out of the American people in order to further an agenda of increased political power.”
No no no, that’s what the GW administration did with Iraq, this global warming news is coming from the vast majority of “world” scientists, not politicians. Yes, maybe “some” politicians are using it as a stick, but I rather them use that then make us believe we need to get into another war.
Believe it or not, global warming is REAL… watch, you naysayers will be on the first bus to higher ground if we don’t control it and it starts to control us.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Do you have RLS, or is your post just a knee-jerk reaction?”-SPMM
ROFL! as the kids say these days. That was nice.
Mark, I copied and pasted the same quote of G. Money’s that you did with the same GW allusion.
It’s weird,
“This is how, 1984-style, it happens. Facts are no impediment to ideology. The collectivist, anti-capitalist, war on personal freedom which is at the essence of the fake “science” ideology underlying the global warming scam will not be deterred by evidence. This is because it has been a lie from the outset and evidence was never part of the calculation.”
was exactly something I would have said if we’d excised “global warming” and inserted “Iraq war”. It’s a wonder where you type were, like, 5 years ago and sh!t.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Hey, maaaaaaaaaaaaan, it looks like global warming has killed the Loch Ness Monster, too! Duuuuuuuuuude
February 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Whoops, I pasted the wrong link there. It’s been fixed (and copied below).
I don’t understand the “green” investments link. I see what it is but I don’t get your point.
As to your question: I think in this case it needs to be rephrased as:
“What are your thoughts on the government taking action, based on limited information, to protect American citizens and interests, when the bald facts that everyone can see contradict the stated assumptions?”
To which I would answer: I am against it!
The link I meant to copy was this
http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm
February 13th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Isn’t the republican base killing the Republican Party? Aren’t they putting an albatross around their neck? The republican base is slitting their own throat. Wake up base, over 85% of Americans believe global warming is real. Enough with your nonsense and agenda, you’re loosing steam and respect, once you loose both, forget about your future.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
PAKman,
The key question w.r.t. global warming is the impact of the human factor. We are talking about comparing the impact of humans v. the impact of the sun on the weather.
The temperature has gone up on Mars. Can we agree that the Ford Expedition is not responsible for that?
How do we measure our global temperature impact when compared to the following variances:
1. mean Yearly Solar Temp
2. earth’s orbital eccentricity
3. The degree of the planetary tilt of the Earth relative to the plane of the earths trajectory about the sun
4. terrestrial volcanic activity
5. pick something
Given each of the above is not something we can control AND has far greater impact upon global temperature variation so how are we going to stop global warming when it may not be our doing?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Well if 15% of Americans have retained their sanity, I am reassured. It gives us something to work with.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am
19,000 scientists can’t be wrong about Global Warming
“warming causes ice to melt, more cold water dilutes the warm gulf stream, which ends up causing colder weather in places. that’s the theory.”
Dip shit, Joe was talking about India, the Gulf Stream does not go any where near India.
The origin of the Gulf Stream is the southern tip of Florida, in the Florida Straits. Having lived there for some number of years, I must have missed the icebergs on my trips to the beach. Your point is also counter to the “global warming will cause an increase in hurricane activity due to warmer waters in the Caribbean”. Wish you guys would at least get your stories straight.
If you want to find out how changes in ocean currents affect our weather, look at El Nino and La Nina. These are real, and significant weather changes, yet not the gloom and doom the Global Warming crowd expects everyone to believe.
Their are three very important facts that the Global Warming crowd does not want known :
One, their predictions are based on computer models. Experiments have occurred that plug in known climate data from 50 years ago to test these models against current climate conditions. They failed miserably. NASA freely admits that their models are wrong as they do not take into account suspended atmospheric aerosols.
Two, the only scientists supporting the Global Warming hysteria all have their hands out for grant money.
Three, Al Goes gets $15k to show up and talk about Global Warming. He wants us to believe he is doing it for the Earth..
In reality, the Day After Tomorrow, will be much like today..
February 14th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Post ate my link re 19,000 scientists :
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
February 14th, 2008 at 1:34 am
General, OK, I concede the point re: “anti-capitalist” in the sense that not all those who are beguiled by global warming hysteria are burying their money in the backyard. Maybe I’m carelessly lumping different classes of crazy people together. My bad.
As Dan notes, the whole idea that man made global warming leads to colder temperatures is, really, tough to defend. Not just because it is counterintuitive but defenders of such an idea have to go to such weird lengths to attempt to defend it. Leaving aside the fact that “the theory” does not exactly explain the report from India, doesn’t it seem the theories are a little all over the place?
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/02ocean.html
See what your own homeboys discovered:
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd083100a.html
Remember all the discussion in 2005 about greater frequency or intensity of hurricanes?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming_2.html
Well, what happened last year? It seems like every weak hurricane is evidence against that theory.
Also, the thing that hangs me up is that global temperature has fluctuated naturally for so many thousands of years. Why would be current blip be attributable to man-made sources? The industrial revolution has been going on for quite some time now, but we have not seen any kind of ramp up of spectacular weather.
I think the evidence of weather is one of the chief factors challenging the theory of man made global warming - made doubly ironic when global warming ideologues like Gore attempt to use weather as evidence FOR the theory.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Yes, puffalump, there is clear evidence of global warming — on Mars and on the satellites of the Jupiter and Saturn. Even Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on Virginia, remarked on the warming of the climate over the previous 100 years. Global warming was occurring BEFORE industrialization. Have you ever heard of the Ice Age?
Global warming was occurring before industrialization, and would continue without it, just as it has on other worlds in our solar system.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Joe, The point of that link is that it’s dumb to argue along the “anti-capitalist” line when you can buy stocks in companies that are turning respectable profits producing “clean” “green” “renewable” “tree-hugger” technologies. If that’s anti-capitalism, that climate change is going to produce some RICH communists!
Jacob, who cares if people are causing it? Who gives a damn about the temp on Mars? If the river is flooding, do you say, “oh well, humans didn’t make this happen, so I guess the town’s just going to have to be washed away” or do you start filling sand bags?
Dan, ok, I’m just going to say it, you’re a putz. Hello McFly, I said MELTING icebergs. They melt in the N. Pole, their MELTED cold water (water being ice in it’s liquid form) flows south and gets mixed in with the gulf stream, which is a current of warm water that flows from the gulf of mexico to the eastern atlantic coastlines. Yes India is farther east. and even though this theory connects the dots from the N. Pole to the Gulf of Mexico to Gibraltar, I’m sure that India is just too far away to feel any effect…
February 14th, 2008 at 2:33 am
I’d argue the parallel or metaphor would not be “filling sand bags” but “banning incandescent light bulbs”.
Oh, yeah, that’s not just a metaphor, is it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441881&in_page_id=1770
February 14th, 2008 at 3:11 am
The point is, puffalump, we are not causing it, and we cannot stop it, so why waste billions of dollars trying?
(And Jacob is not the Astrophysicist. I am.)
February 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Let’s send Al Gore on trip to the sun. perhaps he can find the sun spots that cause global warming and return home with his brainy ideas on how to fix the sun so we have no more weird weather.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
PAKman,
“who cares if people are causing it? Who gives a damn about the temp on Mars? If the river is flooding, do you say, “oh well, humans didn’t make this happen, so I guess the town’s just going to have to be washed away” or do you start filling sand bags?”
You argument here is ludicrous. First of all this is not the “flood waters are rising” kind of a scenario if the sun is putting out more heat the earth will heat up even if we all stop buring fuels, farting, turning on any kind of electircal device tomorrow.
If it is not a function of the sun, but let us say it IS us, then action on our part is in order. Otherwise pal you look about as dumb as some shamman chanting incantation up at the lunar eclipse for the sun to return.
Furthermore the Shaman’s recipe does not hurt anyone. The economic hardship Kyoto will impose upon us doesharm people. Usually those with the least means will go under first. So in your case if this involves more than chanting you better proove IT IS US FIRST. So you answer your ever so trite “who cares if people are causing it?” I do, you should, you dolt.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“You argument here is ludicrous.” I beg to differ. You only say it’s ludicrous because you’ve either got nothing, completely missed the point, or both.
We know that weather systems are incredibly complex, so much so that they inspired something called “chaos theory.” We know that small changes lead to big differences. In the most advanced computer weather models, a setting an input at 1.0001 vs 1.0002 can mean the difference between a tornado and a sunny day. This is “the best intelligence we have,” if you will. `
We also know that things are changing. The average temp is rising at an increasing rate. Whether it’s purely caused by people, or it’s a completely natural cycle, or both, the bottom line is that if it keeps up, cities will flood, deserts will get all kinds of rain and farm lands will dry up. in northern climates, thawing permafrost is already wrecking havoc on the built infrastructure.
So this is what you need to pay attention to: ASSUME we aren’t causing it: what can we do to prepare for it’s negative effects? you can argue all you want about who or what is causing it, the point is what are we going to do about it? If it can be slowed down by reducing greenhouse gases, great! If there’s no stopping it, then it seems like some preparations are in order.
furthermore, reducing pollution will have ramifications beyond potentially slowing climate change. In the process we will become healthier, because we’ll have less environmental exposure to harmful stuff, we’ll be wealthier, in part as a function of being healthier, and because it will cost less to heat and cool our houses, power our cars, etc. We’ll become less dependent on foreign oil, because we’ll be more efficient with our use of fuel. Jobs will be created, as factories that produce high tech clean energy stuff set up shop to meet the demand. American companies have long been leaders in high tech, innovative products. This is the next wave, international markets are already demanding it. There is money to be made. Oh, and less smog.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
This passage from Joe’s link says it best.
“The truth of the matter is that the man-made global warming fear factor is based on little but computer modeling, conjecture, hype, contrived hysteria, and the desire of bureaucrats, politicians and radical greenies to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and gain control of people’s lives.”
I would add to her list opportunistic leftists.
Like I said before, this has very little to do with environmental science and way more to do with environmental socialism.
The author is right . This is about control. This is about the expansion of the nanny state and by extension the world nanny state. This is about extracting wealth and resources from those with the deepest pockets for the purposes of redistribution.
Sir lumpalot:
To Suggest that because corporations are jumping on the bandwagon looking to make a buck on global warming or going green and that in some way provides validity to the concept is both silly and ignorant of history.
Every ism that has come down the pike since the French revolution have had corporate allies in some form or fashion.
Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s Nazism both relied heavely on corporate allies. They and others to include kindered spirits in America often referred to it as ‘Corporatism’. Corporations both private and those controlled by the state profiting from governmental mandates and the costs associated with social engineering is nothing new. It is that small part of capitolism or the corporate structure that Socialists, Communists, Facists and others on the left are willing to tolerate. They realize yet will never admit that in order for their particular ism to survive it must stand on the shoulders of capitolism. Capitolism being the only ism capable of creating anything will always be the short term desire of tyrants.
Ask Hugo Chavez.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“In the most advanced computer weather models, a setting an input at 1.0001 vs 1.0002 can mean the difference between a tornado and a sunny day.”
So you admit the computer models are bogus (they do not even include cloud effects, which is hilarious, since warming produces ocean evaporation which produces cloud cover which lowers the surface temperature — a damping effect the models do not include), but you insist we hamper our productivity to deal with the predictions of bogus models?
“ASSUME we aren’t causing it: what can we do to prepare for it’s negative effects?”
That is another matter entirely. I have no disagreement with you there.
“You can argue all you want about who or what is causing it, the point is what are we going to do about it? If it can be slowed down by reducing greenhouse gases, great!”
The point is that there is no evidence that we CAN slow it down. Spending money to prepare for it is much more efficient than spending money on useless efforts to stop the inevitable.
“reducing pollution will have ramifications beyond potentially slowing climate change. In the process we will become healthier, because we’ll have less environmental exposure to harmful stuff….”
Except that CO2 is NOT harmful in the quantities we are discussing.
“we’ll be wealthier, in part as a function of being healthier….”
It might be noted that our silly socialist programs LOSE money when people live longer.
“…and because it will cost less to heat and cool our houses, power our cars, etc.”
How’s that? If the alternatives to oil were less costly, we would be using them already.
“We’ll become less dependent on foreign oil, because we’ll be more efficient with our use of fuel.”
We’ll be less dependent on foreign oil if we drill offshore and in ANWAR, so why do the Democrats oppose that?
“Jobs will be created, as factories that produce high tech clean energy stuff set up shop to meet the demand. American companies have long been leaders in high tech, innovative products. This is the next wave, international markets are already demanding it. There is money to be made. Oh, and less smog.”
This requires a whole new post explaining some Econ 101. Please stay tuned.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I didn’t know Jack was a Ostrich? A stupid one at that. But I guess I can believe that he thinks he’s smarter than the extreme vast majority of environmental scientists. He already thinks he’s smarter than the vast majority of biologists. I guess Jack is just smarter than everyone! (Jack, look! A statement we can agree on!!)
So here’s his argument:
1. The scientists are wrong, we aren’t causing the problem.
2. The scientists are wrong, we can’t do anything about it.
3. Whether any of that’s true or not, we should just enjoy it and die!
4. BTW, please make sure no one pries the machine gun out of my globally-warmed, dead hands.
Jack, you ARE a funny guy! I love this blog if for no other reason than to chuckle at fools like you.
Yes, the Kyoto treaty would hurt our economy. Our economy’s doomed anyway once the Chinese get enough cash to buy the country. We’ve been living high-on-the-hog spending far more money than we make for years.
Either way, we’re going to have to tighten the belts soon. Might as well start now. I don’t want to leave the WHOLE problem for my grandkids. They’re going to get 90% of it anyway. I’d say “bite the bullet”, but that might start up another gun control thread. They’re REAL productive!
February 14th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“I guess Jack is just smarter than everyone!”
Just about, yes. Modest, too.
“1. The scientists are wrong, we aren’t causing the problem.”
First, we have clear evidence that such warming has been occurring for a few hundred years (since the “Little Ice Age”). How did we cause that BEFORE industrialization? Second, we also have evidence of such warming on other worlds in our solar system. Are little green men causing that? Third, the Little Ice Age coincided with a period nearly devoid of sunspot (the Maunder Minimum) , while the past 70 years have “seen the longest and most intense period of sunspot activity for 8,000 years.”
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2005/20051128.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-15.html
“2. The scientists are wrong, we can’t do anything about it.”
Unless we can dial down the sunspot activity, that is correct.
“3. Whether any of that’s true or not, we should just enjoy it and die!”
You obviously cannot read. I agreed with Gen. Puffalump that we should prepare for the warming.
“4. BTW, please make sure no one pries the machine gun out of my globally-warmed, dead hands.”
Yes, thank you. When the world has gone to hell, and you try to raid my house (and puffalump’s) because we have prepared while you wasted your time trying to hold back the tide, I will shoot you. So try Gen. Puffalump’s house — he probably won’t be armed.
“Yes, the Kyoto treaty would hurt our economy.”
And for no good effect.
“Our economy’s doomed anyway once the Chinese get enough cash to buy the country. We’ve been living high-on-the-hog spending far more money than we make for years.”
I was just reading an article in the USA Today (delivered to my hotel door), about how Republicans were so much happier than Democrats. I suppose part of it is that we PREPARE for things, rather than trying to fight what we cannot change and expecting others to save our sorry asses when we fail. Yes, I have written an entire article on this blog about how our penchant for credit cards and other debt is the cause of our trade deficit. It seems we have a second point of agreement.
P.S. — Happy Valentine’s Day
February 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
You naysayers are just angry people, just read your posts, they’re quite comical.
You don’t believe in science because science pokes holes in your core beliefs’…face it, that threatens you.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Clean your glasses, Mark. Comical is what you see in the mirror. We have two science guys here debunking the global warming scam. They do rocket science. What are your credentials?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Actually, Joe, the rocket science is my undergrad degree (and my job), the graduate work is in Computational Astrophysics, particularly stellar evolution. So, yes, I do know something about solar activity and sunspots!
February 15th, 2008 at 1:15 am
“To Suggest that because corporations are jumping on the bandwagon looking to make a buck on global warming or going green and that in some way provides validity to the concept is both silly and ignorant of history.”
G stone I was making the point that it’s hard to argue that something is anti-capitalist while people are buying and selling stocks in it. Not only are you taking phrases out of context, but you are clearly delusional. There’s nothing I can do about that.
Jack,
“but you insist we hamper our productivity to deal with the predictions of bogus models?” No I do not.
“That is another matter entirely. I have no disagreement with you there.” I’m saying it is THE issue.
“Except that CO2 is NOT harmful in the quantities we are discussing.” and “silly socialist programs” It’s not just CO2, and it’s not just the level WE’re exposed to. For instance, in urban areas, asthma rates are elevated in neighborhoods with highways running past them or through them. This has an economic impact, people tending to have more absenteeism, parents having to take time off work to take their kids to the doctor more often. In short, healthier people are more productive. I’ll admit that in the climate change discussion, THIS is a side issue, but still an important one I think.
“ANWAR” band aid, not the most sustainable solution. again, an aside. ok.
at this point I’ve had it up to here with the econ, but have at it if you must. why not talk about externalities associated with pollution? a factory benefits from not having to operate cleanly, and the surrounding community bears the costs. Dow chemical polluted the tittabawassee river with dioxin, now property values have plummeted in the town of Midland, or keeping with the above highway example, people are bearing the costs of auto emissions, in the form of more illness. Who’s benefiting? So you say it’s going to harm our economy if businesses have to operate cleanly. Are you accounting for the negative consequences of no regulations?
“we have clear evidence” you mean propaganda. What makes you so sure that carbon and etc. isn’t a factor, anyway? In these discussions it’s always stated that “Mars is getting warmer” What does that tell us about the effects of pollution on the climate? nothing.
in light of this conversation, saying that you guys are all about preparing is pretty ironic.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:14 am
>> “but you insist we hamper our productivity to deal with the predictions of bogus models?” No I do not.
Good.
>>“That is another matter entirely. I have no disagreement with you there.” I’m saying it is THE issue.
OK, we can discuss preparations, then.
>>”It’s not just CO2…”
It’s not CO2 at all. I agree with all of your points about the pollutants, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
>>“we have clear evidence” you mean propaganda.
Now NASA scientists are propagandists? Please.
>>”What makes you so sure that carbon and etc. isn’t a factor, anyway?
Nothing at all, but I am not trying to impose detrimental restrictions on our economy without evidence, either.
>>In these discussions it’s always stated that “Mars is getting warmer” What does that tell us about the effects of pollution on the climate? nothing.
It tells us that there must be some other forces at work besides CO2.
Now, I have to catch a flight back east. Later.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Jack vs a pair of lemming Nit Wits following Al Gore over a cliff.
Call me crazy, I’m going with Jack.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
K-PAK,
““Except that CO2 is NOT harmful in the quantities we are discussing.” and “silly socialist programs” It’s not just CO2, and it’s not just the level WE’re exposed to. For instance, in urban areas, asthma rates are elevated in neighborhoods with highways running past them or through them. This has an economic impact, people tending to have more absenteeism, parents having to take time off work to take their kids to the doctor more often. In short, healthier people are more productive. I’ll admit that in the climate change discussion, THIS is a side issue, but still an important one I think.”
This is an issue, but it is an issue separate from the global warming.
Back to global warming …
We are dealing with a chaotic system. We cannot predict snowfall from now two weeks into the future. But the bozo’s with their statistical models (who are dependent on getting more funding to study the ‘danger’) are predicting weather out 50 and 100 years. It is patently laughable on its face. Ony morons with degrees in journalism or politics could fall for such bunk.
We can observe the past up to the present. Like a recession, we know we are in a warming trend once we ARE in a warming trend. That is it.
as for …
““You argument here is ludicrous.” I beg to differ. You only say it’s ludicrous because you’ve either got nothing, completely missed the point, or both.”
OK, what would you call trying to fight the impact of Sun? Aside from ludicrous, maybe ’silly’ would be better?
My initial argument was that we must determine the root cause of the current warming trend. I make no assumptions. The scientific community is not in a consensus (another patently ridiculous statement, we as a community never come to consensus on ANYTHING). I mentioned solar activity, volcanism and human activity as some of the possible candidate culprits.
If it is the first two, we cannot stop it. Your risible ““who cares if people are causing it?” is ludicrous on its face IF the cause of the warming trend is Solar or Terrestrial in nature.
You are calling for action when any action we take may not matter a tinkers damn. You want to tell me that is something other than ludicrous?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“In general, what are your thoughts on the government taking action, based on limited information, to protect American citizens and interests?”
What exactly are they going to do against the sun? Did you all know that the emmissions that are caused by man are such insignificant amounts that even after they are eliminated at a very great cost to us, the inevitable warming will still occur?
I know it’ll be inconveinant for peoplep in Florida, but we will not be able to stop global warming anymore than we could stop the last ice age. It’s all in the earth’s cycle ranges.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Republicans are happier because they keep their rose-colored glasses on and convince themselves that the world is the way they want it to be, not the way it is. If they actually concerned themselves with the problems of the world instead of just arming themselves to the teeth, they would be as shocked and saddened as the dems.
Too bad the repubs continue to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. Too bad they continue to ignore facts they don’t like and just fill themselves with anecdotes that support their pre-conceived positions.
And they want to run the place? What a laugh. How sad. That’s the #1 thing that makes the dems less happy is that the repubs actually think they know how to govern! It’s also funny, in a morbid sense.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“what would you call trying to fight the impact of Sun?”
Classic. That is going in the sidebar as soon as I get some free time.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am
inSanity,
Ooooh, great comeback. No answer to the question posted, just a seriously lame ad hominem attack.
get a grip. Humans ain’t that powerful.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
SANITY,
YOUR RESPONE #35…..BACK IT UP WITH FACTS. THE DEMO’S SAY THEY SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS, DO THEY SEE OUR NATION AS WELL. SHOW ME THE FACTS TO BACK YOUR STATEMENT. KEEP IN MIND THAT EVERY DEMOCRAT WE’VE HAD IN OFFICE SINCE CARTER HAS DONE DIDDLY SQUAT TO PROTECT OUR NATION, IT’S PEOPLE, HERE AND OVERSEAS……I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Well, show me the website that confirms that “diddly squat” was, in fact, accomplished.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“what would you call trying to fight the impact of Sun?”
Classic. That is going in the sidebar as soon as I get some free time.
My suggestion: Sunglasses and sunscreen.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
SANITY:
“DIDDLY SQUAT = THE IN ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION WHEN OUR NATION HAD SEVERAL TERRORIST ATTACKS HERE AND ABROAD. THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT CLINTON DID DIDDLY SQUAT: DO NOT NEED A WEB SITE
TO EXPLAIN IT. IT’S HISTORY……
February 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Puft,
You were on something there when you came to the realization that it doesn’t matter if it is caused by humans. It does matter but needs to be proven. Your prevention part goes out the window because some things are not preventable. I would agree to a preperation mode which is all that can really be done.
About theories: a theory is only good until it can be disproven. It doesn’t have to be disproven in whole, just in part. We have oodles of theories and some from some real nitwits. While waiting to be disproven (which in eventuality, they are) they are being used as “gospel” and scare tactics to get a biased agenda implemented. This is what is causing alot of global warming-needless hot air! It is not so much change in thinking and actions that is necessary. Understanding and prevention would take care of that aspect. We need to deal with KNOWN facts and leave the blown theories and computer models for people like Sanity? who cry “the sky is falling”!
February 15th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Stayputf says “Dan, ok, I’m just going to say it, you’re a putz.”
Which translates from liberalese into “I have nothing intelligent to add to this debate”.
Sanity says “Too bad the repubs continue to be part of the problem and not part of the solution.”
There is no solution to an imaginary problem.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Staypuft further notes :
” They melt in the N. Pole, their MELTED cold water (water being ice in it’s liquid form) flows south
And this water flows south exactly how ? Sounds like you are trying to say this cold polar water will flow downhill from North to South !
February 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Jack :
“so why waste billions of dollars trying”
Simple, it is not his money, he has no skin in the game..
Dan
February 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Dan :
Stop it ! you know it is unfair that you engage these two in debate. In order to make it fair, you are to use only half of your brain from here on out. If debating PuffaLump alone, we will need you to be asleep in order to make things equitable.
We are not going to warn you again. Stop picking on High School sophmores.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“We are dealing with a chaotic system. We cannot predict snowfall from now two weeks into the future. But the bozo’s with their statistical models (who are dependent on getting more funding to study the ‘danger’) are predicting weather out 50 and 100 years. It is patently laughable on its face. Only morons with degrees in journalism or politics could fall for such bunk.”
In general, Jacob, this is not a problem. For instance, I am fairly confident that the stock market will be higher in 30-50 years, but next week is anyone’s guess. The problem is that the weather models are known to be inaccurate, especially in their lack of cloud modeling, the lack of input precision, and the completely unknown effects on and of ocean currents.
Now, inSanity seems to be ignorant of the fact that we truly live in the best of times. Global food production has outstipped population growth for the last 100 years. We have air conditioning, water in our deserts, and our “poor” are better off than the middle class was 50 years ago.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Jack,
“Now, inSanity seems to be ignorant of the fact that we truly live in the best of times. Global food production has outstipped population growth for the last 100 years. We have air conditioning, water in our deserts, and our “poor” are better off than the middle class was 50 years ago.”
Watch it boy, keep talking sense like that and ol’ inSanity might blast ya with his … !?! Oooops!! My bad!
That character probably don’t have a gun, and would consider it bad manners to own one. How embarrassing!
where wuz I? oh yeah …
ol inSanity will hit ya with an injunction to stop making sense in public, informing the willfully ig-near-ent wretches in his party and removing the scales from the eyes of the intellectual proletariat. He’ll git around to it right after he hangs up his gun free zone sign.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Why doesn’t Jack just stick to what he specializes in?
Just because he’s a so-called “rocket scientist”, uses big words, phrases, quotes so called facts from unknowns and then puts it all in a salad spinner, we are all to believe him over the vast majority of scientist around the world?
Folks think about it, he does this so you are all confused or impressed. If you truly believe he is 100% correct, then you are blinded just as Jack wants you to be.
He isn’t as smart as you think he is, oh he is smart in many ways but he is also very ignorant and quite arrogant, Hilteresk in many many ways, read his posts and those of Hitler, their similarities are closer than you think, and please, just don’t do that, look at them both then judge with an open mind.
Jack if you do respond, I’m sure you will hang on a word or phrase to discredit all of what I said. Go ahead; respond with one of your simple arrogant posts. If you are really smart, take what I wrote and really think about how much you are hurting the human race. Unfortunately, I don’t think you will use your smarts in that fashion, I’ve been reading your writings for quite sometime.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Anyone see the report yesterday about the “planet wide cooler temperatures” from the Goddard Institute For Space Studies?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/giss-land-ocean-index-dives-in-jan08-matches-trends-for-uah-and-rss-satellite-data/
How interesting that “global cooling” is beginning to emerge as a current issue within the scientific community.
Yeah, those rocket scientists are not as smart as they think they are. Hitlers, all of ‘em.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Mark,
Hilteresk? Is that like Hilter/Skilter, the song by the Beadles? You know, Charlie “the swastika” Mansion.
Jack will correct you in that he is an Astro-physisist. No, not like the dog on the Jetsons. And it appears that smart people tend to have that sense of arrogance. It is not something that we see in ourselves but what others say we are….as you did. Are Jack’s stats wrong or are you a little green with envy.
Oh, Jack. Look what you have done to me. You have pulled the woolcap over my eyelids. I think I’ll have a Toasted Almond.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I think I’ll join you …
February 19th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Try your propaganda garbage on someone else, this is just one theory and here’s a quote from that link.
The huge La Niña event going on in the Pacific may be responsible for rapid temperature changes in our atmosphere.
Did your read the words “may be” ???
Is it because you are so obsessed with finding a thread from someone who will try to contradict what the overwhelming thought is of scientists throughout the world?
Oh that’s right, you follow the words of Jack, and you’re savior. LOL!!!
February 20th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Mark,
Read comment #42 about theories. I think your g-string is giving you a wedgey. Relieve the tension. See Joe’s article on the AK.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:03 am
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
February 20th, 2008 at 12:05 am
That’s right, Scientist. Nap time.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Here I am posting to individuals who probably voted for Bush not once but twice – that says it all…
Sleep tight
XO
February 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Some interesting info I ran across today :
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades
Wish that damned butterfly would stop flapping it’s wings..
February 21st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Oh what’s this… something that debunks your post?
Oh dear, oh my, we naysayers better go find another radical right wing article or possibly pull something from the bible – that will teach those people from protecting mother earth.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19726444.800-global-warming-twice-as-lethal-as-previously-assumed.html
February 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Mark,
The article was about the impact of pollution upon health more than anything. Anthropomorphic global warming is assumed, ok, so how does this debunk Dan’s link?
BTW, if you can cut the name calling ‘naysayers etc’ we might wind up with some reasoned discussion.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Mark, I encourage you to continue protecting the Earth to your heart’s content. Forgive me if I ever indicated otherwise. And on behalf of Mother Earth and all of the living creatures and spirits and faeries of the wood and glen: You have our gratitude, oh Science Man.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Joe, thank you so much, I and our lord have seen you have changed your ways, praise the lord Jesus…….. He has saved another man!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
[…] this story could make what was looking like a grim year rather enjoyable. Although, as we’ve seen, it sure does freak out some of our […]
February 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Mark Said -
“Oh dear, oh my, we naysayers better go find another radical right wing article or possibly pull something from the bible – that will teach those people from protecting mother earth.”
Rather typical attitude, if you do not accept my liberal dogma without question, then you MUST be a right winger and/or conservative Christian.
Yes Mother Earth does need us to look out for her, so much so that it is not necessary to invent junk science such as the current global warming hysteria. THIS is my BIG problem with the current hysteria, it its taking our focus away from things that can and should be done.
My worst fear is that once the global warming hysteria is universally accepted to be junk science, then there will be a backlash against doing those things we should do to look our for the habitability of our planet. My forecast is for the current hype to have a long term negative impact on this. So there you go Mark, when this happens, it will be your fault, and those like you.
Then, Al Gore will hide in his basement, counting all the money he has made off of his fear mongering..
February 28th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Sorry I missed your rantings, Mark. Fortunately, Dan’s comment brought me back to this thread.
First of all, I am really a rocket scientist. I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering from Virginia Tech. My graduate work at GMU was in Computational Astrophysics.
Second, NASA and “Nature” are not exactly “unknowns.”
Third, you said, “If you are really smart, take what I wrote and really think about how much you are hurting the human race.”
Well, considering how much progress has been made in the last century right alongside that global warming you’ve been harping about, it seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Now, as for the cooling of the last year. I don’t buy it — yet. As I have said in other threads on other topics, one year of such data does not make a trend, nor can it even be taken to start the reversal of the prevailing trend.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Check out my blog here:
http://lovethecoops.blogspot.com/2008/03/anthropogenic-global-warming-propaganda.html
I’ve written a pretty nice piece about Anthropogenic Global Warming Propaganda.
Right up your ally.
Enjoy