Take a look at this.
On the second day of spring, no less.
It appears the lifestyle botherers changed their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change" just in time--just in time to keep nagging us about eliminating of Edison's incandescent bulbs (only one of the twenty greatest inventions in the history of the world; the others, if you care, are the wheel, paper, the printing press, the still camera, the clock, the voice recorder, the telephone, the wireless, the movie camera, the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the television, the computer, Sputnik, Apollo 11, the microchip, the internet, and the cellular phone) just as Al Gore flies off in another private jet or returns to one of his four, going-full-blast mansions.
To put it one way: I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start behaving like it's a crisis.
To put it a second way: what I look forward to is twenty years from now, when the truly intellectually honest people awake as if from a slumber as if to ask, "What the hell were we thinking?"
To put it a third way: What is truly hilarious is how the leaders (you know, movie stars) pick up panics, then discard them as if they were last year's dresses hung limply on racks in Filene's basement. Question: when was the last mention of AIDS during an Oscars broadcast? Five years ago? Ten? Fifteen? The last one I remember was those nags, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, in 1993, and that was in an attempt to co-op the AIDS ribbon to the Haiti matter. Nowadays President Chimpy Bushitlerburton pours billions of American dollars into the cause at the locus of the problem (that would be Africa, not heterosexual America, regardless of the headlines you read in 1987), and to no approbation whatsoever. George W. Bush (who, yes, had the power to marshall the full force of the exectuive branch of the US government) has done more than any person on the planet to combat both African AIDS and African poverty--so says Bob Geldof, pretty much the last popular singer not named Bono who even sniffs in the direction of that dysfunctional continent. One would think Geldof would have the proper ethos to speak about President Bush. One would.
But. But how many high-profile celebrities nowadays invest their prestige in anything African? Brad Pitt, at the edges? George Clooney, decrying genocide in Darfur, but blind to the reality that an end to said genocide would come at the cost of an American-led invasion and occupation?
Okay, got off topic. My point is this: Five years from now, "global warming" will have the same cache as AIDS in Haiti does now. Ten years, starvation in Ethiopia.
The difference? AIDS in Haiti, starvation in Ethiopia, these things are real.
Man0made global warming, with human-activity solutions, is a fraud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You repeatedly point to these extreme weather events on the cold side (as well as Gore's electric bills, apparently) as proof global warming does not exist. Changing and extreme weather patterns--including record snowfalls in some areas, as well as floods, droughts, and super hurricanes--are symptomatic of global warming. Global warming gets its name, however, because it refers to the earth's average global temperature, not isolated events. The most extreme changes to average temp take place at the poles, but the whole planet is getting hotter.
There is a direct correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature of the planet. It is similar to putting a car in the sun for a few hours. The inside of the car heats up.
The good news for your point of view, Joe, is that it has won out. It is too late to turn this thing around, and the brakes aren't even being applied yet. The corporate owned MSM allowed corporate sponsored lies about global warming to cast enough doubt on scientific consensus to muddy the waters. There is no legitimate debate. The earth is not flat, even if half the talking heads on TV say it is.
One of the other ironies, complexities, (whatever you want to call it) is that global warming will eventually trigger an ice age. When the polar ice caps melt, the currents in the ocean that release heat into the atmosphere will stop releasing heat into the atmosphere. It will get cold. The science is actually quite easy to understand.
The repeated objections about how cold it is in Madison, not to mention Gore's travel habits, miss the point.
Jimmy: You write:
"Changing and extreme weather patterns--including record snowfalls in some areas, as well as floods, droughts, and super hurricanes--are symptomatic of global warming. Global warming gets its name, however, because it refers to the earth's average global temperature, not isolated events. The most extreme changes to average temp take place at the poles, but the whole planet is getting hotter."
Well, pick. Is an "isolated event" symptomatic of something or other, or is it not? What is truly laughable about the whole phenomenon is that whenever it's beachwear weather in New York, we're told it's a symptom of global warming. Whenever the Midwest goes through record colds, we're told to dismiss it as an "isolated event." Okay, how does this thing work?
You write: "There is a direct correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature of the planet. It is similar to putting a car in the sun for a few hours. The inside of the car heats up." Fine. How much that affects the overall climate of the earth, to the extent that we might have a sixth Ice Age (the first five, remember, happened long before SUVs) is the precise bone of contention right now.
"The good news for your point of view, Joe, is that it has won out. It is too late to turn this thing around, and the brakes aren't even being applied yet. The corporate owned MSM allowed corporate sponsored lies about global warming to cast enough doubt on scientific consensus to muddy the waters. There is no legitimate debate." Oh, PLEASE. To paraphrase my non-existent Jewish grandmother, I should live so long. The global warming alarmists are the ones proclaiming all debate to be at an end, that the time for dramatic (and economically crippling) action is now. Do you wish to disassociate yourself from these claims? NEWSWEEK had a cover story calling skeptics "deniers" on par with Holocaust deniers. If I punched up "global warming," on Google then ABC, CBS, NBC Washington Post or New York Times, what would be the tone and the tenor of the article I retrieved?
"The earth is not flat, even if half the talking heads on TV say it is." The shape of the world refers to its present condition; what will happen is its future. There is a difference. And in that spirit . . .
"One of the other ironies, complexities, (whatever you want to call it) is that global warming will eventually trigger an ice age. When the polar ice caps melt, the currents in the ocean that release heat into the atmosphere will stop releasing heat into the atmosphere. It will get cold. The science is actually quite easy to understand."
Well, when that happens, you can tell me I was wrong.
"The repeated objections about how cold it is in Madison, not to mention Gore's travel habits, miss the point." Would that your fellow alarmists thought the first part so. I'll shut up about Madison when they shut up about how sunny it is in Philadelphia.
As for Al Gore, comments about his lifestyle are a means of conforting us, insofar as the world's leading spokesman for climate change doesn't take his own warnings very seriously. Why should we?
Joe
I'm not aware of repeated instances of people claiming that locally hot weather is evidence of global warming. More compelling are studies of, for instance, rise in sea levels or changes in Arctic/Antarctic ice and permafrost.
I'd be interested to see the scientific evidence that backs your claims. Please provide.
Tell a creationist there is no debate about the acceptance of evolutionary theory as the accepted scientific paradigm. That person will tell you the debate is open. They will tell you that you will find out how wrong you are when Christ comes and tosses you in hell. That person will Deny all scientific evidence--no matter how bullet proof it is--that undermines his faith. They will explain to you how the scientists are arrogant and biased. That person is wrong. That person will not change his mind, and no one expects them to.
I am persuaded by scientific consensus, and I reject the "science" put forth by petroleum hacks. The creationist needs to persuade the rest of us. Once one gets an article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, his denial will deserve the microphone they have all been given.
I agree. If the evidence of science doesn't fit with one's political or religious beliefs, that doesn't mean the scientific debate is open. Faith and strictly anecdotal evidence do not refute rigorous scientific investigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Note the only dissenting statement: "With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[39]"
Post a Comment