Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘global cooling’

MAJORITY OF TV WEATHERMEN: MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CROCK

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2010

Someone ought to explain to both the enviro-fascists and global warming hysterians that a “greener” world will necessitate warmer temperatures. Generally speaking, plants, grass and trees have a predilection to “green up” when the mercury rises.

That’s sort of the whole concept behind spring and summer. (Note that crops – such as food – have a penchant for growing better in the summer time).

Go figure.

Oddly enough, corn, wheat, tomatoes and soy beans have high failure rates as winter crops. (The Earth has a tendency to be less kind to crops when the ground is cold).

It’s nuts, I know.

Perhaps the enviro-wackjobs might want to modify their battle cry from “Go Green!” to something more befitting, like “Go Brown!” or “Go Gray!”

And while there are many who do, in fact, believe the earth is warming to some extent, an ever-increasing number of folks do not think human activity is the cause of it – and that includes nearly seven in ten television meteorologists across the United States.

Seventy percent.

How’s that for an “ouch”?

Johnny Simpson at Digital Journal writes:

A recent CBS News report revealed a startling statistic: While more than half of all TV meteorologists believe global warming is occurring, less than a third believe it is caused by human activity.

And why exactly is that so “startling”?

I suppose for the same reason it continues to shock the mainstream media to learn that the majority of Americans support the new Arizona immigration law.

Libs live in a bubble.

Or maybe they simply never knew there were this many barbarians (i.e., conservatives, clear thinkers, patrons of common sense, etc.) out there.

From CBS News via Breitbart TV comes some surprising news: a joint George Mason University and University of Texas survey of TV meteorologists in America reveals that while more than half (54 percent) believe global warming is happening, less than a third (31 percent) believe it is caused by human activity, specifically man-made carbon emissions as determined by the IPCC and others.

TV weatherman Dan Satterfield, who was interviewed by CBS News for this report, is in the minority of TV weathermen and women who believe global warming is caused by human actions. “It used to be a mountain of evidence, and now it is a mountain range of evidence,” Mr. Satterfield told CBS News. “You put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the planet’s going to warm up. That’s a said and done fact.”

It’s also a fact that if one guzzles two gallons of bleach, he or she will most likely die. Or that if one naps on a subway track, he or she has an excellent chance of being killed by a train. Just because swallowing bleach and catnapping on train tracks can kill doesn’t mean it is a societal problem. The amount of “greenhouse gas” (i.e., carbon dioxide) being put into the atmosphere by humans is so infinitesimal as to be statistically irrelevant. There is simply no iron-clad proof of any kind – not a scintilla of evidence – that human beings are not only causing temperatures to rise but that in doing so, they are placing the planet in peril.

None.

However, San Diego TV weathercaster and Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman begged to differ with Mr. Satterfield’s conclusions. “Everything they (GW scientists) do is based on carbon dioxide being a pollutant, a greenhouse gas. So if that is wrong, and I know it is, all of the others (conclusions) fall by the wayside.” Former NASA climate scientist Roy Spencer agreed with Mr. Coleman. “It’s my view that most global warming has been natural,” Mr. Spencer told CBS News. “Nature is perfectly capable of producing its own global warming and cooling.”

It in inconceivable to the purveyors of common sense that human beings could have such a catastrophic effect on the climate as to actually affect weather patterns. How exactly? If humanity wanted to – if we made it our mission to purposely warm the world in an attempt to thwart a coming Ice Age – we wouldn’t be able to make a dent. We could run every automobile until they were blue in the fenders – fly every airplane, keep every smokestack from every factory pumping out endless plumes of smoke – and the winters would still come, the rains would still fall and sun would still set in the West.

wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

AGENDA-DRIVEN CLIMATE SCIENCE – AMAZON RAIN FOREST DANGER IS A PHONY

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2010

All of that “hockey stick” talk turned out to be a load of balderdash, but it hasn’t been enough. The inability of scientists to explain why the world isn’t warming anymore doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that not a single computer model managed to predict the current cooling patterns hasn’t seemed to curb anyone’s hysteria. The reality that global temperatures are trending down is explained away as being “part of the larger climate change problem.” The fact that no one can seem to tell us what the correct temperature should be hasn’t stopped the climate fascists from pushing their agenda. The idea that the world’s leading authorities on global warming were caught in a disgraceful data manipulation scandal has not kept the zealots at bay.

To be clear, the polar bear population is not decreasing, the Arctic will not lose all of its ice inside of five years, coastal cities are not in danger of being submerged beneath ice-cap melting floods, and using multiple squares of toilet paper will not make Sheryl Crowe’s music sound any better.

But it doesn’t matter.

The science is settled. We’re just waiting on the data to catch up.

A couple of weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to retract a claim that “climate change” would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. The “warning” was not based on peer-reviewed science, mind you, but on anecdotal observations from a magazine.

Brilliant, no?

The fact is, even with climatic conditions at their ice-melting worst, it would likely take hundreds of years for all of that ice to turn to water.

But wait, it gets better.

This time, the anecdotally-based “science” concerns the Amazon rain forests.

Jonathan Leake at the Times Online writes:

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

So, they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another …

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.

And where, pray tell, is the media on this one? Where are all the young, fraud-hungry Woodward and Bernsteins out there? How is it that this little masterpiece isn’t making the rounds?

And when will we finally be able to say goodbye to those God-forsaken squiggly light bulbs?

And can I get a great big “hip-hip-hooray” for those engine idling, incandescent bulb burning, over flatulating, anti-environment types?

It’s damn cold here in New York.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

BIG THREE NETWORKS: WHAT HACKED E-MAILS?

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 3, 2009

Please raise your hand if you are at all surprised at the big three network’s complete and utter dismissal of the “Climategate” fiasco. (I suspect that if it were possible for me to see all of you, there wouldn’t be a single elevated arm in the room). While Senator Barbara Boxer urges the public to focus on the real evil of Climategate – namely, the “conspiracy” involving criminal hackers who breeched the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit computers – the alphabet wing of the “drive-by” media (as Rush Limbaugh calls them) won’t even get in the car on this story, let alone drive by.

In short, ABC, CBS and NBC are not just short-changing the American public on the ever-unfolding scandal, they are ignoring it completely. While White House gatecrashers snag every headline across the map, the unraveling of arguably the greatest science scandal of all time has warranted nothing. While the extramarital affairs of golf’s greatest hero saturate the morning and evening news programs, there hasn’t been as much as a polar bear’s burp worth of time devoted to the crumbling of the man-made climate change castle.

As I wrote last week in my article, “Mainstream Media: What Global Warming Hoax?“:

Indeed, this is a story that ought to be plastered across every front page of the world. This charade, which has been called the greatest threat facing humanity and has been inculcated into every orifice of western culture for the better part of two decades, should have bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young Bob Woodwards itching to get out there to make their journalistic bones.

Sadly, it doesn’t.

And while all the time in the world is being spent on the “Global Climate Summit” in Copenhagen next week, the fraudulent science behind the summit – and the uncovering of e-mails between the movement’s main players seemingly confirming it – have yet to be acknowledged.

Julia A. Seymour at the Media and Business Institute writes:

It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC’s Sunday talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

One can only imagine the hullabaloo if, hypothetically, the hacked e-mails of CRU were discovered to be bogus. If it turned out, for example, that the e-mails were created by a band of disgruntled scientists who were angry at not receiving a beaucoup of grant money like the global warming big boys (because, after all, there is no money in denying global warming), the alphabets would be all over it like Joe Biden on dumb. Round the clock coverage of Tiger Woods’ infidelity might even seen a break over that one.

As it is, this may be the biggest story to be ignored since Saddam Hussein’s food-for-oil scandal.

And why is it so big?

Because the religion of man-made global warming is poised to change the way the entire world functions on almost every level of existence. The belief that the earth is in peril because of human activity, and the actions that will be taken by hysterical alarmists to combat it, without a stitch of proof, will literally reshape the entire world’s economy and spawn a plethora of policies that will cripple prosperity and productivity. It is an imposition of blind faith through stringent regulations and free-market killing initiatives. It is a form of tyranny, based on a phantom crisis, that will erode liberty, impede progress, and put countless people out of work while conferring the kind of power on government that would make a totalitarian blush with envy.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if every one of these enviro-fascists believe the world is fixed to come to a horrific end in thirty years (or whatever the latest timetable to doomsday is). It doesn’t matter to me if they believe the planet will die because there are too many SUVs on the roads or because my toilet tissue has too many plys to it – the same way it doesn’t matter to me if there are religious people who believe Judgment Day is three years away.

The difference, however, is that the beliefs of the conventionally religious, as irrational as they may appear to some, will not shatter entire economies. Belief that the world is six-thousand years old, for instance, harms no one else, whereas levying exorbitant taxes on corporations that go over their allotted limit of greenhouse gas emissions because of fraudulent, politically-driven, pseudo-science will do irreparable damage.

The myth of global warming will do more harm than the fairy-tale calamities dreamed up by the global warming scaremongers.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the enviro-fascists where they can stick their squiggly light-bulbs, but then I might be accused of lobbying for proctologists.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

THE MYTH UNRAVELS – HACKING AWAY AT GLOBAL WARMING

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 23, 2009

Could this be what triggers the final unraveling of the global warming myth? Is this the beginning of the end for the environmentally hysterical? Since a decade of cooling temperatures hasn’t done the trick, and the fact that there isn’t a stitch of evidence proving that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures, could this possibly be what sends this fairy-tale trolly off the rails?

Theoretically, you’d think this is one story that just couldn’t be ignored by the mainstream media. Even the most hard-nosed skeptic would have to concede that this juicy little ditty is alphabet-channel newsworthy.

I must therefore tip my hat to the Washington Post who actually put on its journalism shoes yesterday.

They decided to report on the big computer security breach that resulted in over a thousand e-mails and some seventy-two documents being stolen (and made public) from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre in Britain on Thursday – one of the foremost climate research facilities in the world.

The hacking of a major institution’s computer system is always good for a mention or two on the evening news, but what makes this story so delicious is that it goes beyond the run-of-the-mill cyber-invasion. This is actually an attack on global warming itself – and for doomsday environmental zealots, that’s a shot at the jugular.

The stolen documents (specifically the e-mails) are proving to be rather embarrassing, and quite damning, to those who authored them. And it just so happens that the authors happen to be some of the leading proponents of man-made global warming in all the world.

We’re talking the global warming big boys: James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Keith Briffa (among others).

The words “manipulation” and “deception” come to mind.

From the Washington Post:

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Isn’t that delightful?

Thus, it makes perfect sense when the believers of a planet on the brink of doom due to man-made global warming look directly into the cameras, hold up the IPCC report, and say there is scientific consensus on the matter. How could there not be when they deliberately leave out the work of others who refute or question it? These are the same hysterical global-warming intellectuals who go out of their way to blackball or shun those with opposing points of view  – or at least those who think more debate is reasonably appropriate. As a result, those who dare to question man-made global warming are omitted from scientific journals and publications altogether.

In other words, if the trouble-making crowd can be pushed off into the scientific hinterlands, they can’t get in the way of forwarding the agenda.

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Positively incredible.

These are supposed to be scientists, mind you – not a group of pre-teen girls deciding who will or won’t be part of their “club.”

But the Washington Post doesn’t go far enough.

For example, according to Tom Wigley (climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), in an e-mail to Phil Jones, there is a problem with some of the temperature readings from the 1940s. There is a temperature “blip,” as he calls it, that apparently does not conform properly to the man-made global-warming theory. It is problematic enough that adjustments need to be made. The “blip” must be resized.

Although a tad technical in some spots, the gist of the e-mail is clearly understood:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Silly me, I wasn’t aware that scientists could retroactively adjust data to meet the desired models.

John Hinderacker at the great Power Line blog comments:

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

Touché.

And make no mistake about it … this is, indeed, a scandal. Whether or not the rest of the mainstream media decides it is worth their time is another story.

Still, there is a whole lot of information to tap into here: From e-mails suggesting that some data would be better off deleted than subjected to public scrutiny, to (as Rob at Say Anything writes) “attempts to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at getting some of this information disclosed so that it could be reviewed by objective experts,” this one seems to have legs … or so you’d think.

Of course, if the debate wasn’t already over, this could be real trouble.
wordpress statistics
-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE EARTH IS NOT COOPERATING, DAMMIT

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009

Is there anything more aggravating than having someone you have defended tirelessly turn on you? Is there anything worse than having someone you did your best to protect with every fiber of your being play Judas? Can the words “betrayal” and “disloyalty” even begin to cover it? Can anything be more distressing? More shocking? Sure, we can expect such things from false friends, jealous co-workers, jilted lovers oand angry siblings. We can anticipate such behavior from our elected officials, our bosses, and even, on occassion, our spouses. But from our planet?

Et tu, earth?

How in the world can the impending calamity of a planet ravaged by the effects of man-made global warming be taken seriously if the damn planet won’t even get warm anymore?

Scientists are baffled.

Gerald Traufetter at Speigel Online writes:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Well, thank goodness Copenhagen has fallen in line.

First of all, I am struck by the incongruity of the third passage of the Speigel article. Traufetter states that the planet’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium – which, as far as I can tell means they are no longer going up. That’s what “stopped” means, if I am any judge of the word “stop.” Then, in the next sentence he says, “it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.”

If warming, by definition, means a rise in temperatures, and if temperatures have “stopped” rising since the start of the millennium, how could it look as though global warming might come to a standstill this year? Didn’t it already “stop” getting warmer at the beginning of the millennium? Isn’t “stop” a synonym for “standstill?” And seeing as temperatures haven’t been climbing for almost a decade, is it still possible for the earth to be warming? If so, how?

Poor hysterical doomsdayers. Nothing is working out for them.

Damn the planet for not cooperating!

And it sounds as if this disobliging ball of climactic confusion is breaking the hearts of the ever-loyal enviro-wackos.

Meteorologist Mojib Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, confirmed that “warming is taking a break.” It’s a clever cover-your-backside kind of thing to say considering the earth’s temperatures have always been cyclical. At some point, warming will always take a break, just like cooling will always take a break. (Think Ice Age, before there were SUVs and CFCs).

On the realization that the world is not getting warmer, as hasn’t for ten years, Latif said, “We have to face that fact.”

He sounded depressed.

“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

Not a single computer model predicted this “non-warming” trend, incidentally.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

CAN THE UNITED NATIONS JUST SHUT UP … OR GO AWAY …OR SOMETHING

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 2, 2009

No UNI don’t recall the last the time the United Nations – the organization that puts terrorist nations on its Human Rights Council and condemns Israel with as much regularity as a teleprompter-free Barack Obama says, “uh” – took the moral high road and stood up for anything. I can’t remember when I was able to use the word “strength” and “courage” in the same sentence as the United Nations, other than to praise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his magnificent speech there in September. The “body” that was created to prevent such atrocities as the Holocaust from ever happening again has afforded the world’s most dangerous terrorists, murderers, and violators of human rights a forum from which to spew their disgusting lies and hateful rhetoric. It is the Woodstock of moral depravity.

Of course, I say this from the perspective of one who believes it is the moral obligation of human beings to fight and defeat evil.

Others, unfortunately, don’t subscribe to that value system – or if they do, their definition of “evil” is often considerably different than my own.

Thus, if one believes the defining of evil is better approached as a subjective matter (i.e., one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter), then the United Nations really has nothing to stand up for – that is, aside from the universally accepted “evils” that are beyond deliberation, like global warming and climate change.

Those “evils” are given.

Trivialities (and inconveniences) such as ethnic cleansing, missile launches into civilian populations, and gross human rights violations simply don’t ruffle the feathers of the United Nations.

However, if one can somehow squeeze in the words “carbon emissions” or “climate change” into the discussion, there aren’t enough sandbags in all the world to hold back the fury to come.

The United Nation’s Climate Chief – a title that sounds as if it has to be made up – is drawing on his inner George S. Patton, saying that December’s global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark had not only better yield an agreement that will save the planet from sure destruction, but it had better be enforceable.

Arthur Max of the Associated Press writes:

Developing countries don’t trust wealthy nations’ promises that they will help them meet the challenges of climate change, the U.N.’s top climate official said Monday, adding that means any new global warming deal must have legal force.

The legal status of an agreement and whether nations will be sanctioned for failing to meet their commitments are contentious issues in talks on controlling the world’s emissions of carbon and other heat-raising greenhouse gases.

“We live in a world of broken promises,” said Yvo de Boer, the U.N. climate chief, told The Associated Press. Developing countries are concerned “they will commit to targets and not deliver.”

He spoke as negotiators resumed work Monday on a draft agreement for approval at a major U.N. conference next month in the Danish capital of Copenhagen.

Actually, we live in world of twisted morality and warped value systems, Mr. Climate Chief.

“We expect the United States to be able to deliver on one of the major challenges of our century,” said Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard, who will chair the Copenhagen meeting.

Hedegaard noted that President Barack Obama will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in the neighboring country of Norway on Dec. 10 — just as the decisive climate conference is under way.

“It’s very hard to imaging how the American president can receive the Nobel prize for his contributions to hope in the world … and at the same time has sent an empty-handed delegation to Copenhagen,” said the Danish minister.

The bills in Congress would commit the U.S. to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by 17 to 20 percent from 2005 levels.

Ah, yes. The President of the United States did, in fact, win the Nobel Peace Prize. I should have remembered that. As I recall, it had something to do with “hope” and “change” or some other utterly meaningless hyperbole that has literally contributed nothing - repeat, nothing - to peace.

lucky charmsI cannot help but wonder if the children of Israel, who had to contend with terrorist missiles raining down on their neighborhoods, managed to summon at least a little bit of that Obama “hope” as the weapons fell from the sky.

If not, what the hell was wrong with them?

And note that Mr. Hedegaard specifically pointed out how difficult it would be to fathom a Nobel Peace Prize winner, like Barack Obama, not bringing back an American-economy crippling, climate saving bill to Copenhagen next month – further proof, that the bogus prize was handed out not because of the impressive accomplishments of the one-time Community Organizer from Chicago, but as a call from leftist Europe as to what is expected of him.

Using history as our guide, take a moment and contemplate this question …

If greenhouse gases actually were a problem, and if they could be personified, would they have anything to worry about at all?

This is, after all, the United Nations we’re talking about.

The Lucky Charms leprechaun is quicker to intimidate than the UN.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, United Nations | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE SIGNS ARE EVERYWHERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009

A week ago today, thousands of people across the globe participated in a “Global Day of Action” to “encourage world leaders to help stop climate change.” (You must have read about it). According to the Toronto Sun, “the events kicked off in Australia, where thousands of people formed a large “350″ number with their bodies in front of the famous Sydney opera house and displayed placards with the number on the hotspot Bondi Beach.” (That’s because these events were put together by a group called 350.org, a band of hysterical doomsdayers hell-bent on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to 350 parts per million from the current planet-slaying total of 387. Clever, yes?)

Meanwhile, in Denver, Colorado, the biggest October storm to hit in twelve years is crippling the metropolitan area. As much as two feet of snow is on the ground in some areas.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that Nebraska and Kansas experienced blizzard conditions yesterday as the global warming freight train came barreling through.

Just sayin’.
wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

READ THE LABELS, SAVE THE EARTH

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 24, 2009

CO2

The greatest casualties in the age of global warming hysteria are satire and parody. That which divides spoof and reality has been so blurred in recent times, particularly in relation to the global warming hoax, that it isn’t possible to differentiate between the two without having to investigate. Even before President Obama signs the Global Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen in December, the extremity with which today’s global warming crusaders operate is already proving to be a bane to the economy. Think of all the comedy writers out of work. 

If the concept of carbon credits wasn’t demented enough; if the notion of a carbon footprint didn’t have you checking your Pepsi for hallucinogens; if the idea that “global warming leads to global cooling” doesn’t have you making sure you aren’t reading The Onion, then please take a moment to check this one out.

The nation of Sweden is looking to take the lead with a brand new initiative designed to combat the terrors of global warming.

(And that’s exactly what humanity needs: another way to make the world safer from greenhouse gas emissions).

Elisabeth Rosenthal from the New York Times explains:

Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”

“Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee.

But if a new experiment here succeeds, she and millions of other Swedes will soon find out. New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.

People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.

Yes, you read that correctly: Sweden is placing CO2 emissions information on food labels.

(That sound you heard was the sound of a thousand satirists slamming their laptops closed and throwing their hands up in frustration, realizing they cannot compete with reality)

Note the term Rosenthal uses in her piece: “climate changing gasses.”

Presumably, the goal of these obsessed global warming wingnuts is to aspire to an environment that consists of one constant temperature and unvarying weather patterns. But what, pray tell, is the correct temperature? The correct climate?

(Still waiting for an answer to that one)

Some of the proposed new dietary guidelines, released over the summer, may seem startling to the uninitiated. They recommend that Swedes favor carrots over cucumbers and tomatoes, for example. (Unlike carrots, the latter two must be grown in heated greenhouses here, consuming energy.)

They are not counseled to eat more fish, despite the health benefits, because Europe’s stocks are depleted.

Pickle eaters and ketchup enthusiasts will be the death of us all.

If one could go back in time, say fifty years, and tell the people of that long-gone era some of things that the future holds – like smoking being outlawed in privately owned bars; certain cooking oils being banned in privately owned restaurants; labels on our store bought food listing CO2 emission levels - those people would look at you as if a family of pulsating goiters were living on your neck.

But wait, it gets better. Read some of the commentary from New York Times readers on the matter. (None of these are made up):

- It is funny, it almost seems like magic when you start to realize what a world can be like without capitalism… They actually care about the environment and their people.

- Once again a Scandinavian country is leading the way. Do others have the fortitude to follow?

- They are so far ahead of us in understanding the interconnectedness of all things. A role model if ever there was one.

- Yes, the Swedes are way ahead of us and setting the standard for eating that is both healthy for your body and your world.

- From the rapacious, civilization destroying Viking raiders to the present enlightened Scandinavians, these people are amazing.

“The environment and their people?”

“The Fortitude to follow?”

“A role model if there ever was one?”

What, pray tell, was the size of the carbon footprint left behind by the Nobel Prize ceremonies in neighboring Denmark? And what will the footprint look like after all the leaders of the world fly to Copenhagen in December to discuss the ravages of global warming? And if beans are to replace beef, as the article suggests, what about the increase of o-zone destroying flatulence that is sure to come from the cows that are left uneaten, not to mention the ever-growing population of bean eating humans?

Perhaps the solution is in eliminating Sweden altogether. That ought to knockout a tasty chunk of those greenhouse gases.

I’m curious … if every computer model in all of human existence is predicting disaster for the Earth due to global warming, why didn’t a single model predict the cooling trends that have taken place over the past several years across the globe? Or the expanding ice at either pole?

Personally, the climate police (and everyone bending over for them) can provide whatever information they wish on any package, any menu, or any pamphlet they so choose. My concerns will be with the price and how tempting the food sounds. For all I care, it can be transported by a fleet of gas guzzling Hummers. If it sounds good to me, I’m buying it.

Oh yeah, one other thing … there is not one stitch of scientific evidence – not an electron’s worth – that supports the argument that increasing C02 levels cause temperatures to rise.

Not one.

I wonder … how did that Ice Age get chased away without a backlog of traffic on the Long Island Expressway spitting out CO2 into the atmosphere?

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

GET COLDER, PLEASE!

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 22, 2009

From the “Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain” file …

I’ve lost count, but I think there are now forty-seven days remaining before planet Earth reaches the point of no return, at least according to internationally acclaimed climatologist – and Prime Minister of Great Britain – Gordon Brown. If memory serves, Earth has already, on several occasions, reached the point of no return. This time, however, I’m inclined to believe that this is the real point of no return.

Unless it’s not.

That scourge, that disease, that terror, that unyielding, unrelenting, sinister plague that looms like grim death over us all – global warming – continues its inexorable assault on a fragile planet that just wants to be left alone.

The latest example is so heinous, so foul, that I am loathe to report on it.

Still, I must …

In Germany, the unabated warming of the globe has caused record-setting low temperatures – in fact, the lowest temperatures ever recorded in October in that country.

Meteorologists on Tuesday morning recorded the lowest ever October temperature in Germany, as the mercury dipped to a chilly -24.3 degrees Celsius in Bavaria’s Berchtesgaden national park.

The bitter cold was measured at the Funtensee, a notoriously frosty lake high in the Bavarian Alps. Jörg Kachelmann from the Meteomedia weather service said conditions overnight were ideal “with brisk cold air flowing in over freshly fallen powder snow.”

That’s -12 fahrenheit.

Look how they massacred my planet.

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

FIFTY DAYS

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

another global warming pictureI appreciate that the blogosphere is abounding with commentary today on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s dire warning that humanity has a mere fifty days to save itself from certain global-warming induced doom.

This is prcisely the kind of story tailor-made for opinion bloggers.

After all, what could be easier (and more fun) to write about than make-believe?

If one buys into the global warming  hysteria, there’s absolutely nothing holding the blogger (i.e., the story-teller) back except bandwidth, time, and the limits of his or her imagination. If one doesn’t buy into it, the assertions are so patently ludicrous, the piece practically writes itself.

However, I admit to some confusion.

Over the past year, depending on the source, the amount of time left before the climactic Day of Reckoning has varied considerably. According to one disaster scenario, humanity may have as many as 2000 days left to set itself straight , while according to another, we may already be past the point of no return.

Naturally, as one who would find the destruction of the planet as we know it cumbersome, I can’t help but ask … Can we possibly come to a consensus on when the end is going to come?  Or, at least, narrow it down?

Can’t our computer models just get along?

Obviously, there’s a science to global warming science that eludes me.

Being only a casual observer of temperature (i.e., choosing the right jacket to wear), one thing is abundantly clear: Regardless of the timeline to ultimate destruction, the common thread through each doomsday proposition is that the awaiting “catastrophe,” as the Prime Minister calls it, is the result of reckless human activity.

We are all to blame.

Brown, speaking at the Major Economies Forum in London – a conference of seventeen of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting nations – said the following:

In every era, there are one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history, because they change the course of history, and Copenhagen must be such a time. There are no fewer than fifty days to set the course for the next few decades. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal over the next few months, let us be in no doubt – since once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late.

World delegations are scheduled to meet in Copenhagen in December for global warming talks.

I do, however, have a few questions for Mr. Brown:

- Try as I might, Mr. Brown, I cannot seem to come up with a single moment since, say, World War II, when nations have come together to reach agreements that have changed the course of history. Would you be so kind as to give me one example since 1945?

- Why, sir, am I to believe that the catastrophe you (and others) predict for the future, based on computer modeling (as all “global warming” hysteria is) is to be believed when not a single computer model predicted the current cooling trends?

- If recent cooling trends are not indicative of a world that is *not* warming, then what is exactly?

- What recent climactic event or event(s) have convinced you that fifty days from yesterday is all we have left before it’s too late? Why not fifty-three? Or Sixty-seven? And what will indicate that “too late” is upon us?

Hurry, Mr. Brown .. we’re down to forty-nine.

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NEVER AT A LOSS FOR THE WRONG PHRASE

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

global warmingThat meteorologists and other weather predicting specialists often have a hard enough time dealing with the extended five-day forecast doesn’t ever seem to bother the save-the-earth climate warriors. The certitude with which leftists and other children predict the end of the planet as we know it due to global-warming (within a generation or two, they say) is surpassed only by their eerie ability to coin a dim-witted – and entirely incorrect – phrase for in-unison chanting and demonstration sign painting.

The term “flat earther” is a popular phrase I’ve heard bandied about to describe those who are skeptical of the notion of a planet in danger due to this climate-killing inevitability. And while I will concede it is a commendable attempt at intertwining environmental consciousness, witty nomenclature and historical awareness, it is – in a word – stupid.

Indeed, as readers of this blog are well aware, I am one who unabashedly – passionately – rejects the view that the planet is in peril, or that it is on the verge of irreversible devastation, or that it is teetering on the edge of complete destruction due to the dangerous warming of the earth (now called “global climate change” because of recent, unmistakeable cooling trends) – thus, I am a flat earther.

Eleanor Wolf, a columnist with the Leader-Telegraph of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, last year commented on Republicans in her state who denounced the global warming threat in a column she called, cleverly enough, “Flat Earth Republicans.” The link, interestingly, has since been broken; but trust me on this, she did write it.

She wrote:

Republican state representatives attending a recent meeting in Eau Claire called the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Global Warming “hairbrained”(sic) and “nonsensical.” Rep. Terry Moulton obviously represents the “flat Earth” contingent when he stated that “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”

I love the word “harebrained” – particularly when it’s spelled correctly. I must use it somewhere.

There are two things to point out here.

flat_earthOne – the modern connotation of “flat earth” largely originates from Washington Irvin’s fantasy novel “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,” published in 1828. It is from there that the myth of medieval Europeans believing that the earth was flat was propagated. How ironic that the term “flat earth” was, too, used by Darwinists in the 19th Century as a weapon against Christians. In fact, Christians believed in a spherical earth, dating back to – and far beyond – the medieval period.

Two – the belief in a flat earth was ubiquitous among humans until the Classical Greek period. Up until that period, believers in a flat earth were virtually unanimous. It was, to summon a phrase, conventional wisdom – much like the granola-chomping notion of an earth so delicate and so fragile that it is about to descend into an environmentally-induced chasm of grim death is today. It took time for the majority to swing in the other direction.

Overwhelmingly, academia and the media have bought into the hysterical claims of impending global-warming doom – and admittedly, so have the majority of the scientific community.

Don’t be fooled, however.

Many of the most well-known, accomplished, distinguished, learned people on the subject of climatology do not believe we’re on the eve of destruction. They have no agenda, are not concerned with angering those who would provide critical funding, understand the millennia-old patterns of climate fluctuation and can cite as many examples of growing glaciers as they can of melting ones.

Ms. Wolf, in her column, went on to say:

Moulton and his Republican cohorts choose to ignore scientific consensus as presented in the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report stated: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. There is a very high confidence that human activities since 1750 have played a significant role by overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, hence retaining solar heat that would otherwise radiate away.”

Since 1750?

Those nasty, nasty hot air balloons…

The idea of a “consensus” on the matter is absolute nonsense – and the debate is nowhere near over, as those renowned virtuosos of climatology, Al Gore and Barack Obama, have declared.

One of my favorite quotes about those of us who rebuff the claims of looming disaster actually comes from a blog I used to frequent. A particularly ardent proponent of imminent earthly demise, a blogger who went by the name of “green_or_die” (I’m not making that up), wrote:

“In a few years, climate change skeptics will be ranked alongside the Flat Earth Society.”

There’s that phrase again.

If I may …

It would be more accurate to say, “In a few years, the belief in ‘climate change due to human activity’ will be ranked along other fossilized, antiquated concepts – like, for instance, the idea of a flat earth.”

Add to that the disastrous threat of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the United States during the 1980s, the running out of natural resources by the year 1990, the indisputable danger posed by global cooling in the 1970s, and the prediction that the New York Jets, at home, would beat the lowly Buffalo Bills yesterday.

Don’t get me started on that.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NEVER BEFORE, SAYS GORE … EVER

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 12, 2009

GoreIt isn’t uncommon for malevolent e-mails to find their way into my ever-unsuspecting “inbox.”

I am regularly asked why I have the effrontery to use the offensive phrase, “liberals and other children” in my hate-filled screed.

Admittedly, I use the expression, in small part, for effect (knowing it will trigger responses). It is rooted, however, in what I feel is an undeniable truth – namely, that liberals don’t bother thinking things through beyond the initial “feel good” step of whatever policy they’re advocating. They don’t bother asking the question, “What happens next?”

It is the sort of unsophisticated, undisciplined, unnuanced approach one would expect from the undeveloped, uncritical, unanalytic mind of a child. While adulthood is about dealing  with, and understanding, consequences, liberalism is almost always about what feels good now.

The great Thomas Sowell calls it a lack of “Stage Two Thinking.”

The other thing that is indicative of modern liberalism is the notion that whatever is happening now is the worst ever seen by human kind. Whatever the situation or circumstance, no matter what has happened before, or what history has shown us, today’s challenges are commonly portrayed as the most extreme ever faced by Americans. Today’s complications and predicaments are unprecedented or unheard of.

Such is the reality when it comes to man-made global warming – or climate change – or whatever the phrase of the month is for liberalism’s latest disaster-to-end-all-disasters fairy-tale.

Last Friday, former Vice President Albert Gore spoke to 500 environmental journalists in Madison, Wisconsin. (I assume these environmental journalists rode their bicycles to the conference, used pens made out of cypress mulch and pomegranate juice, paper made out of regurgitated bovine saliva, and communicated with cups and strings instead of cell phones and lap tops).

Said Gore:

“We’re very close to that political tipping point. Never before in human history has a single generation been asked to make such difficult and consequential decisions.”

***Liberals and other children ALERT***

Words mean things.

“Never before” in all of human history has a generation had to make such difficult decisions.

Never!

In human history!

Powerful stuff, Al.

Whether it was the American Civil War ravaged generation of the 1860s, the American Independence seeking revolutionaries of the 1770s, or the Nazi and Imperial Japan fighting generation of the 1940s, no one in all of recorded existence has had to face the challenges or the “consequential decisions” that the squiggly light bulb generation is having to deal with today. The invasion of the European continent by the Allies in June, 1944 seems so inconsequential compared to the inherent dilemmas of paper or plastic. The decisions that led to the defeat and subsequent demise of the Soviet Union pale in comparison to the perplexities of multi-ply or single-ply toilet tissue. And if there is as mystifying an issue as to whether or not to succumb to the evil of notching up the thermostat during the winter, I am not aware of it.

Also interesting to note from the Gore chat is this little exercise in open and honest debate. From the Wisconsin State Journal:

Gore has been criticized for not publicly debating his position since the release of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.

You don’t say.

Cut off by the moderators?

Has this been fact-checked?

Maybe it was a loose wire.

Or someone on Dick Cheney’s payroll.

In other news, record-low temperatures are threatening to destroy some of this season’s crop of potatoes in Idaho; record cold temperatures are being seen in Western Montana; and even in Austria, they are seeing the earliest snowfall ever recorded there.

Dammit, pay attention to your carbon footprints, people!

wordpress statistics
-

 

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

WE NEED MORE GREENHOUSES GASES

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 10, 2009

frozen chicagoThis is a tricky situation.

Admittedly, my meteorological skills have deteriorated since the advent of Doppler Radar, advanced computer modeling, and the end of magic marker forecasting on erasable white boards.

I’m not even sure I understand the difference between dew point and relative humidity.

And even though I think I am starting to get a handle on the enormity of the impending global warming catastrophe that awaits us all, I’m still wrestling with the finer details.

For instance, while I understand that rising temperatures can cause falling temperatures to trigger warming that can lead to widespread cooling, I’m still uncertain whether the original post-Industrial Revolution widespread cooling was the inevitable result of climactic shifts brought on by the original wave of man-made global warming – which would have, presumably, elicited the subsequent warming trends that preceded the current cooling trend – or if it was a temporary deviation that unwittingly led to the inevitable consequences that now face humankind due to the warming that is causing all the recent cooling. This, of course, doesn’t take into account the perils of global moderation, which has sparked the disasters of global temperateness, global normalcy, and global nothingness.

Still, there can no doubt that global warming threatens every living entity that occupies space on this planet; and nothing says “global warming” like snow in early October.

Andrew Greiner from NBC Chicago writes:

Start cursing the weather gods, Chicago.

Snow could be coming to town as early as this weekend. That’s right, snow. Flurries and flakes.

The forecast says that Saturday night rain will turn into the white stuff early Sunday morning.

If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago. The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.

But it won’t be a complete anomaly – Chicagoans are accustomed to strange, disappointing weather.

Chicago has played host to October snowstorms before. Back in 1989 we got hit with 6.3 inches for the month.

What’s worse than the snow is the below freezing temperatures that are expected to accompany it.

October snow.

Go figure.

Call me uncompassionate if you like. Label me unsympathetic if it makes you feel better. Tell me I’m downright narcissistic, but feel free to put me down for a little “impending global disaster.”

What the world needs now is warming, sweet warming.

Get out to your garages and let your cars idle. Run your hair dryers. Stop recycling. Throw away your squiggly light bulbs. If you own cows, feed them legumes and get their flatulence makers working.

It’s time to warm this puppy up.

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THAT’S COOL – NUMBER EIGHT WITH A BULLET

Posted by Andrew Roman on July 6, 2009

The Untouchables and The Twilight Zone were still a year away, but Chuck Berry’s all-time classic “Johnny B. Goode” was new and burning up turntables across the map. Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis Presley were still alive. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was born. And yes, the damn New York Yankees won yet another World Series.

It was also the year that brought the coolest month of June to New York City in thirty years.

It was 1958.

In fact, beginning in 1929, there hadn’t been a New York City June any cooler than the one that gripped the five boroughs that year.

So, what’s my point?

Just a quick exercise in dealing with reality.

Can you guess which year brought the second coolest June to the Big Apple since 1929? 

(insert drumroll here

If you said 2009, you are the winner. Take a hip-hip-hooray out of petty cash.

That’s right – this year has brought the second coolest June to New York City in eighty years.

As traitors and turncoats to planet Earth continue to deny that the world hangs perilously in the balance thanks to the imminent dangers of man-made global warming, temperatures last month averaged only 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit here – the eighth coolest June since four years after the Civil War ended.

But don’t allow things like cooler temperature readings blind you to the realities of a planet see-sawing precariously over the pits of ineluctable destruction.

Thank God human beings are causing temperatures across the globe to rise to near catastrophic levels. Thank goodness man-made global warming is propelling the Earth to almost irreparable levels of damage.

New York City might have been debilitated with the coming of a premature, crippling ice age otherwise.

Only human selfishness, indulgence and the thirst for profits helped to save us this time.

Freon, lead cans and Pampers for all!

-

Posted in Junk Science, Liberalism, Science | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

ARE YOU SURE THAT’S THE RIGHT COLOR?

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2009

Go Green_Brown

It isn’t possible to swing a dead ferret (or one of a billion special-edition Obama Inaugural collector’s magazines that are still on sale at a newsstand near you) these days without hitting something that urges us to “Go Green.” There is hardly a place one can even draw a breath anymore without being peppered by pleas – nay, demands – that we, the citizenry of the world, live a “greener” lifestyle. From grocery store flyers to signs attached to garbage cans, from leftocrat school curricula to simple radio commercials, the ongoing, never-ending battle cry is “Go Green!” It is the mantra of today’s cause-obsessed left – always starving for some new morality to rally behind, while remaining steadfast in their unwillingness to take on the true enemies of humankind, namely evil humans.

Of course, the Grand Poobah of today’s environmentalist whitewash, Al Gore, would sooner call a Hummer-driving, air-conditioning-running, incandescent light-bulb burning supporter of George W. Bush evil before he would a suicide bomber who wipes out innocents, but I am speaking as an adult here, not a liberal.

The truth is, all roads in the current battle for a “greener” planet emanate from one place … the impending catastrophe of man-made global warming.

(It is imperative to clarify that the problem, as defined by the greenies, is “man-made.” If it were proven to these enviro-warriors that the warming they fear is simply a natural phenomenon, none of them would care if temperatures went up fifteen degrees, let alone one over the course of a century).

Not that the planet has been warming at all for several years, but as long as judgments don’t have to be levied against the value sets of other people (except, of course, in the case of greedy capitalists, fossil-fuel consuming narcissists and anyone who buys into the free market sham), morality can continue to be defined inappropriately and cowardly.

The irony is that for things to be “greener,” temperatures would, in fact, have to be warmer.

Remember your four seasons?

When things start to get “greener,” isn’t that something associated with warming temperatures? Aren’t spring and summer the times of year when the mercury is trending upward? Aren’t they the warm weather seasons?

Greener trees, shrubs and fields are almost always the result of rising temperatures. Most foliage thrives in the warm weather. Food is more plentiful when temperatures rise. Economically, warmer periods are more prodictive.

Wouldn’t it better – or, at least, make more sense – for the environmentalists to ask us all to “Go Grey?”

Or “Go Brown?”

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

BETTER PANICKING THROUGH UPDATED LANGUAGE

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2009

climate-change-1

The term “global warming,” which for a period of time had been unofficially replaced in the American lexicon with the phrase “climate change,” just doesn’t play well with a lot of people anymore. That the world is neither warming (and hasn’t been for several years) nor behaving in any way inconsistent with the cyclical climactic nature of its four billion year life span seems to be irrelevant to those attempting to determine why this is so.

According to John Broder of the New York Times, the term “turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes.” The reality that people may actually be tired of being bombarded day and night with nonsensical threats of a bogus global warming catastrophe doesn’t seem to enter into the minds of the people at EcoAmerica, the “nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm” that conducted a recent poll on the matter.

Rather, it is all in the packaging.

Thus, as liberals are wont to do when evidence, history and facts shatter their contrived calamities and political agendas, they change the label in the hope that the people will buy into the product.

Broder writes:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. (Robert M.) Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.

Arrogance, thy name is environmentalism.

A question … The fact that “environmental issues” consistently rate near or at the bottom of polls couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that most people understand that the hysteria of impending doom that environmentalists like Al Gore peddle to the masses is pure hogwash, could it?

The idea that most people are not operating in red-alert panic mode over the preposterous claims that the planet is on or near the brink of irreversible devastation absolutely infuriates the greenie-wacko set. The problem, according to EcoAmerica, is that they just haven’t hit upon the right catchphrases, slogans or angles to sell their haggard agenda well enough.

If “global warming, as Mr. Perkowitz suggests, is perceived as a code phrase for “progressive liberals,” who exactly is to blame for that? If today’s environmentalism is associated with “progressive liberalism,” it’s because they are the ones who consistently and repeatedly latch onto crisis after phony crisis, hysteria after hysteria, doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario, with the fate of the planet and humanity hanging in the balance. There isn’t a crisis they won’t promote … or one they have gotten right. From global cooling to overpopulation, from resource depletion to the threat of heterosexual AIDS, from global warming to second-hand smoke, each new challenge is a threat to the very existence of humanity – and ultimately, the earth itself.

They’re batting 1.000.

They’ve been wrong every time.

It makes one wonder what the “perfect” temperature is, or what the “correct” number of people on earth would be, to today’s enviro-warriors.

If “global warming” was anything but political fodder for the Left, why would a name change even be necessary at all? Why would “campaigns” and “strategies” need to be devised to convince people of its very existence? The fact is, years and years of environmentalist screeching about the dangers of human activity and the effect it has on the climate ring less true to more and more people as global temperatures continue to go down – just as they always have after a warming trend. In other words, if the Left (and a few misguided rightists) genuinely believe that the danger facing the planet was clear-cut and irrefutable, why would their agenda need to be prettied up with more favorable focus-group-friendly phraseology?

This isn’t just a matter of finding the right bumper sticker slogan for an unknown product that needs public exposure. Anyone who has been alive and cognizant anywhere in the developed world over the past decade-and-a-half has heard the phrase “global warming” and knows what the phrase implies.

That many have rejected the product  – with many more doing so each day – is proof that clarity of thought is not yet dead – only victims of lefticide.

-

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BLACK MAY NOT BE SO BEAUTIFUL

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 28, 2009

ban me. i'm killing you.

ban me. i'm killing you.

No, seriously.

The State of California could be – I say, could be – the first state in the union to ban black cars.

And why, pray tell, would the Golden State do such a thing?

To save the earth, of course.

There’s no word as to whether there are plans to ban Oakland Raiders jerseys, the outside of Oreo cookies or black people.

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch.com writes:

The California legislature is considering regulating the color of cars and reflectivity of paint to reduce the energy requirements to cool them. A presentation on the proposed legislation by the California Air Resources Board is below.

The problem isn’t the color per se, but the reflectivity of the paint overall. And dark colors just don’t reflect well, so they are likely out. “Jet black remains an issue,” says the report.

The concern is that air conditioners in darker colored vehicles need to work harder than those in lighter ones.

If automobile air conditioners are working harder, that means more planet-funkifying ugliness is being fed into the atmosphere. And if more ugliness is being recklessly fed into the atmosphere, that  means a veritable cauldron of eco-system destroying manmade death is in store.

And that’s not good at all.

Anyone who’s ever entered a very hot car knows that it can be cooled down immediately by driving a few feet with the windows open, effectively neutralizing any color-caused heat issues before engaging the air conditioner. But whatever, black is evil.

The new regulations would be phased in beginning in 2012, so if you want that black car, you better buy it soon.

And you thought that black Toyota Pious you bought made you such a good person. Think again, you tree hating energy slob.

Isn’t liberty – California style – grand?

And for those who will ask if I should have waited until April 1st to post this blog entry, don’t bother.

I’m not making it up.

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

PRINCE CHARLES SAYS 100 MONTHS TO GO

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2009

prince-charles

Temperatures in Rio De Janeiro are expected to be in 80s this week. It is probably a far better and more credible locale from which to deliver a global warming doomsday speech than, say, Washington, D.C., which recently saw a huge rally of earth-conscious moonbats brave near blizzard conditions to protest the warming of the planet.

And so it will be that this coming Thursday, in Brazil’s second largest city, that the world renowned climatologist, and future King of England, Prince Charles, will give a keynote address in which he will warn that humanity has less than 100 months to act before damage from man-made climate change becomes irreversible. How this prognosis meshes with Al Gore’s prophecy that the northern polar ice cap will be gone in less than two thousand days – roughly 66 months – isn’t clear. Neither is how Charles’ warning stands up against the seemingly contradictory claims made recently by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that it’s already too late to do anything to save Earth.  

Still, the Prince is positive about all the negatives that await humanity unless action is taken now.

From the UK Telegraph:

Prince Charles will say that the need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever before and that, even in a global recession, the world must not lose sight of the “bigger picture.”

Government officials believe that the Prince’s passion to protect the environment is hugely respected abroad and that he can play an increasing important role as he inevitably moves closer to becoming king. Some believe he is an “asset” that has been underused in the past and they want to use him more in a role of “soft diplomacy”. In Thursday’s speech, the Prince will warn that a failure to act in the next eight years will have catastrophic effects for the planet.

Temperatures in Tokyo may not be as balmy as in Rio De Janeiro – only in the 50s this week – but I wonder why the Prince doesn’t make a stop in Japan to impart his doomsday forecast to the apprehensive masses there.

Oh wait .. maybe it’s because Japanese scientists have recently declared the entire man-made global warming scare pure garbage.

Didn’t they get the memo that the debate was over?

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

AL, IT HAS TO BE A COINCIDENCE

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009

protest_dc1Remember these?

On Valentines Day, 2007, a House hearing entitled, “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” was scratched due to snow.

In 2006, in a speech delivered in New York, Al Gore warned of the imminent dangers of global warming while wind chills approached forty below zero.

In October of last year, another speech by Mr. Gore on global warming – this time at Harvard University – took place while Massachusetts was hit with “near 125-year breaking low temperatures.”

Last year, in Utica, New York, cyclists “braved freezing cold temps” as they promoted global warming awareness.

There are, of course, a plethora of zesty ironies such as these documented.

Global Warming zealots make it increasingly more difficult for satirists and comedians to invent fresh material. Many of these dedicated climate warriors have become living embodiments of self-parody – not just because of their fatuous notions of a planet in peril, but because it isn’t possible to write a script more ironic, more hilarious or more emblematic of liberal doltishness than these real life occurances.

As has been widely reported, what was supposed to be the “nation’s largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change” in Washington on Monday was all but stymied due to – you guessed it – a huge winter storm.

Turnout was, you might say, on the low side.

Eric at the great Vocal Minority website comments:

The event went on, although the turnout was more like hundreds instead of the predicted thousands. You know you’re a hard-core global warming activist when you’re protesting in a ton of snow in March.

He’s also got a handy compilation of other “Gore Effect” type of incidents posted, such as:

- Global warming activists urged to focus on Earth Day rallies and ignore snow as it ‘piles up outside our windows’ (April 17, 2007)

- Obama to global warming demonstrators: ‘This is probably not the weather to hold up those signs…it’s a little chilly today’ (October 28, 2008)

Fox News says that as many as 2,500 nutcases- er, protesters – braved the wintry conditions yesterday, but that figure comes from protest organizers:

…But the shroud of snow wasn’t the only wet blanket in the nation’s capital Monday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called on the architect of the Capitol to stop burning coal at the power plant last week, cancelled her appearance at the rally because her flight to Washington was cancelled.

Some protesters couldn’t make it as dozens of flights in the area were delayed or called off, and some couldn’t face the dangerous roads or blustery weather, leaving hundreds safe, if sorry, back at home.

One protester named Kat had planned to get arrested and be bailed out Monday but decided to stay put and donate her money to a good cause instead.

“I don’t want to travel in the snow today. However, I am donating my bail money to fight mountaintop removal,” she wrote to the Climate Action Web site.

It takes a special kind of person to donate her bail money to help the environment.

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

YES, CASSANDRA, IT IS GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA – ANSWERING A READER

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2009

climatehoax

After my article last week, FUNNY GLOBAL WARMING TIDBIT – PESKY DATA – which I invite you to read if you haven’t already – I received a reply from a reader called Cassandra, who took me to task for what she obviously felt was a typical flat-earth, knee-jerk, right-wing reaction to a story related to global warming.

As I have done on many occasions with other readers, I would like to address Cassandra’s post, point by point.

Even if you haven’t read my piece, or the original article I’m referencing, you’ll still get the gist of it all, I assure you.

_____________________________________________

Cassandra wrote:

Why is science “leftist hysteria”? Isn’t the scientific method intended to remove bias rather than foster it?

I respond:

It isn’t science. That’s the point. It is instead “leftist hysteria,” quite rightly classified as such because of what has been a long history of unfounded and universally incorrect doomsday scenarios created by agenda-driven, research-money hungry “experts” with leftist worldviews.

For instance, recall that it is with the same fervor and certitude currently fuelling the increasingly ridiculous “global warming” panic that the abundance of stories and studies were published predicting the United States would be overrun with widespread heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was inevitable we were told.

It never happened, of course, despite “consensus” from experts and scientists.

Thirty-five years ago, we were warned that global cooling was going to ravage the Earth when things were “trending” in that direction. Somehow, the world managed to get a bit warmer, after it had gotten cooler, after a warming period, which coincidentally followed a cooling trend.

Let us not forget how we were admonished that humanity would run out of food by 1990. Remember that?

Or how, by 1997, the O-Zone layer would be so damaged due to human activity that the number of cases of ultra-violet-light induced skin cancer would explode to catastrophic levels.

Surely you remember the fear-mongering of how natural resources would be depleted by the year 2000? or how overpopulation was going to be the death knell to humankind?

When agenda trumps truth in the sciences, it is a bad thing, Cassandra.

Cassandra wrote:

Why do many people assume that a “trend” needs to be linear? For example, isn’t it evident that we currently have a stock market trending down even though there are many up days?

I respond:

First, I know of no one was has denied any warming trend. (By most objective standards, temperatures in recent years have leveled off and are starting to “trend” downward).

So what?

There have been warming trends throughout the history of Earth. In fact, there have been trends that put the most recent one to shame. Recall the Ice Age, for example. Obviously, things warmed up enough to melt prodigious amounts of ice without the benefit of SUVs and disposable diapers.

The “hysteria” of the current position lies in the adopting the trinity of climactic disbelief – that not only are temperatures rising, but that the rise must be proven to be triggered by human activity, and then at such a level as to cause catastrophe.

But of course, the real question here is … from what starting point are you basing your trend? Compare temperatures today to the 1970s, and it is generally warmer. Compare them today to the 1930s, the late 1990s or the eleventh century and they’re cooler.

Second, why is it that global warming alarmists automatically believe the world should be colder now? On what do they base that conclusion? Should it have been colder when the Vikings were growing grapes in Newfoundland, centuries before the advent of the automobile and airplanes? Was it too cold during the Little Ice Age between 1200 and 1800?

Cassandra wrote:

Why was the time frame of the “sensor drift” error left out in the discussion? Isn’t it pertinent that this error started in early January of 2008 and was caught and corrected? How come an error that affected less than two months of real time data (now expunged) refutes decades of other data?

I respond:

How come you completely miss the point I’m making?

The year 2008 was reported as being the “second lowest” in terms of how much Arctic Ice exists. The year before, 2007, was reported as being the “lowest.” If the criterion for “warming” is based on how much Arctic Ice exists, then, by definition, it cannot be getting warmer, if the amount of ice “grew” from one year to the next.

To dip into my bag-o-logic, if I have less money and assets this year than I did last year, I cannot be getting wealthier.

If I weigh less this week than I did last week, I cannot be getting fatter.

Before the “drifting sensor” problem was realized, there was believed to be less ice than there really was. This only reinforces my point.

Cassandra wrote:

Also, I thought it would be helpful so include URLs to the actual NSIDC articles, so here are two primary links to the NSIDC info under discussion:

February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

February 26, 2009
Near-real-time data now available: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I respond:

I sincerely appreciate your links to the original articles. I encourage people to read them.

However, none of it – repeat none of it – does anything to further the argument of those who believe that the world is not only getting warmer, but that it is being caused by human beings, and that the result of those man-made temperature rises are catastrophic for the planet.

Seeing as everything that is happening to this planet right now, climactically speaking, has happened before – many, many times, in an endless merry-go-round of climactic cyclical bliss – and the fact that the planet is somehow still here, in one piece, lends nothing to the credibility of these hysterical assertions.

love-my-co2First off, there is no consensus – nor is there evidence – that CO2 causes global warming. There simply isn’t. There is actually more evidence to suggest that CO2 levels increase after warming begins, despite the “facts” peddled in Al Gore’s largely discredited piece of garbage film, An Inconvenient Truth. Besides, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be nearly insignificant in terms of temperature. Even doubling the amount of CO2 would have little effect on climate.

Second, I have to assume that “global” warming means only the Northern Hemisphere, seeing as whatever warming has been noted over the past few decades has only occurred north of the equator.

Third, the Medieval Warm period was warmer than it is today. How is that possible without smoke stacks, diesel engines and Al Gore’s mouth?

Fourth, does it occur to anyone on the panicked side of the debate that the loss of a multitude of cold climate weather stations in the collapsing Soviet Union in the late 1980s and 1990s somehow, remarkably, inexplicably coincided with the totality of “global temperatures” rising? The fact is, thousands of measuring stations closed in that part of the world during that “death of the Soviet Union” period. Wouldn’t that fact, at least, warrant some consideration from the supposedly unbiased scientific community? Wouldn’t that seem like a logical point to ponder in a debate that has sadly been declared over by such notables as Barack Obama?

By the way … if the debate is over, why are hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars still needed to study this stuff?

Thank you, Cassandra.

In other news, this damned global warming is burying my car under a foot of snow.

-

 

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

FUNNY GLOBAL WARMING TIDBIT – PESKY DATA

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2009

arctic-ice

Never let the truth get in the way of good old-fashioned, down-to-the-bone, leftist hysteria.

Recall the amusing little story from late last week that flung yet another delicious dagger into the heart of the Global Warming industry – the report of a glitch in satellite sensors that caused scientists to miscalculate, i.e. underestimate, how much arctic sea ice there was by nearly 200,000 square miles. Some had apparently noticed that there was actually ice in areas listed by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) as “open ocean.”

The error was triggered by a problem known as “sensor drift,” according to scientists at the NSIDC. In short, it turns out there’s actually more ice up there than originally thought – an area that equals the size of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and all of New England combined.

This story, indeed, received a fair amount of play over the weekend and into early this week.

However, one thing in the story that went largely unnoticed (written by Alex Morales) was this little paragraph:

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

The hilarity – and absurdity – of what is being said here cannot be overstated.

In 2007, according to the NSIDC, the Arctic ice cap shrank to its lowest levels ever. (All Arctic ice cap measurement data covering the years 2,000,000 BC through 1843 AD were lost in a flood, I believe). The following year, 2008, the Arctic ice cap posted its “second lowest annual minimum.”

Second lowest.

For those who are Al Gore, that means there was more ice in 2008 than in 2007.

Yet, the NSIDC went on to say conclusively that the error does not, in any way, contradict the assertion that Arctic ice continues to dwindle. In other words, the fact that the ice is growing does not mean the ice isn’t shrinking.

(I’m thinking of the scene in the movie Animal House, where a young Kevin Bacon is standing amidst the exploding chaos of the “disrupted” homecoming parade, screaming, “All is well!“)

If the Arctic ice in 2007 was at its lowest extent, and the following year it was at its second-lowest extent, i.e. more than the year before, how exactly does one draw the conclusion that Arctic ice, despite “sensor drift,” is still retreating?

True, I have no degree in climatology, nor do I play a meteorologist on television, but I’m obviously missing something here.

The finer distinctions and nuances have clearly gone over my head.

Maybe I need to stop trying to comprehend the amazingly explicit and stick to the merely explicit.

Pesky data.

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , | 9 Comments »

CLIMATE IN PERIL HEADLINES – THEN AND NOW

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 5, 2009

why?

why?

There is definitely a theme here. It’ll be as obvious to you as whiskey on the breath of a Kennedy almost immediately.

What do the following headlines all have in common?

-THIS CLIMATE OF OURS; WHY THESE OPEN WINTERS AND TEMPERATE SUMMERS?

-WARMING ARCTIC CLIMATE MELTING GLACIERS FASTER, RAISING OCEAN LEVEL, SCIENTIST SAYS

-IS CLIMATE CHANGING?; HABITS OF MAMMALS AND BIRDS SUGGEST WORLD IS WARMER

-GREENLAND’S MODERATING CLIMATE TURNS HUNTERS INTO FISHERMAN; ECONOMY ONCE BASED ON SEA MAMMALS NOW DEPENDS ON COD SOLD FOR CASH

If you said that these stories of rising global temperatures were published between 1870 and 1954, you’d be absolutely right!

Okay. What about these?

-THIS CLIMATE OF OURS; WHY THESE OPEN WINTERS AND TEMPERATE SUMMERS? THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE ALTERNATE PREVALENCE OF A SEMITROPICAL ATMOSPHERE.

-NATION IS HELD ON VERGE OF CLIMATE SHIFT; EXPERTS SEE OLD-FASHIONED WINTERS BACK

-HOW INDUSTRY MAY CHANGE CLIMATE

If you guessed that these stories (two of which spoke of cooling or moderating temperatures) were published between 1855 and 1953 – roughly the same period as the first set - you’d once again be right!

Okay, climate-jockeys, how about these?

-SCIENTIST FEARS EQUABLE CLIMATE AROUND WORLD COULD BE ENDING

-WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; TWO ARTICLES COUNTER VIEW THAT COLD PERIOD IS DUE

-INTERNATIONAL TEAM OF SPECIALISTS FINDS NO END IN SIGHT TO 30-YEAR COOLING TREND IN NORTHERN HEMISPHERE

If you said these contradicting stories appeared within six years of each other, between 1972 and 1978, you’d be worthy of your own back yard Doppler Radar unit. Bravo.

(A huge tip of the hat goes to Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters for compiling these. Amazing work, indeed.)

By the way, each of these headlines comes from the pages of the New York Times.

And now … the very latest warning of certain disaster, to go along quite nicely with the recent revelation that the effects of man-made global warming will be largely irreversible for the next one thousand years.

From the Los Angeles Times: CALIFORNIA FARMS, VINEYARDS IN PERIL FROM WARMING, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY WARNS

California’s farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said Tuesday.

Chu warned of water shortages plaguing the West and Upper Midwest and particularly dire consequences for California, his home state, the nation’s leading agricultural producer.

In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.

“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.

Did you catch that?

California’s cities may disappear from the face of the map due to all of us.

In other news, 55 Americans are still dead due to last week’s global warming ice storms that roared across the country - 24 of whom died in Kentucky alone.

Hello FEMA? President Obama? (Maybe if they named ice storms it might have warranted some more concern?)

By the way, there’s a wonderful anecdote from EricTheRed at the Vocal Minority blog concerning his (respectful) confrontation at synagogue with a global warming zealot who was invited to speak.

Check it out.

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

QUICK FOLLOW UP – IRREVERSIBLE GLOBAL WARMING IS HERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

As the Earth spirals violently to its demise as a result of irreversible man-made Global Warming, snow storms have taken the lives of at least nineteen people and have left nearly a million without electricity across the country. Meanwhile, Al Gore is braving the wintry mess to tell Congress that the current financial crisis should not draw attention – or funding – away from the fight against Global Warming.

There is no better example of irony – or idiocy – available.

From Fox News.com:

A destructive winter storm that has left more than 800,000 customers in the dark barreled into the Northeast on Wednesday, delaying flights and turning the morning rush into the morning slush as communities braced for the worst.

The storm has been blamed for at least 20 deaths and a glaze of ice and snow caused widespread power failures from the Southern Plains to the East Coast. Authorities said it could be a week before some communities have electricity again.

Tree limbs encased in ice tumbled onto roads and crashed onto power lines in hard-hit Arkansas, Kentucky and Oklahoma on Tuesday and overnight. In Arkansas — where ice was 3 inches thick in some places — people huddled next to portable heaters and wood-burning fires as utilities warned electricity may be out for a week or more.

Recall that the effects of Global Warming have been officially declared “largely irreversible” by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

wordpress statistics

 

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UNPREDICTABLE TODAY … GUARANTEED TOMORROW

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2009

melting earthA couple of weeks ago, “six to eight” inches of snow were forecast to fall in and around the New York City area. Every station in town began their “team coverage” from salt truck stations all over the Tri-State area well in advance of the storm’s arrival.

The forecast remained fairly steady in the hours leading up to the “event.”

Then, about seven hours before the storm was supposed to hit, the predicted time of the storm’s arrival was pushed back by about eleven hours. On top of that, snowfall totals were amended to “one to three” inches due to slight shifts in the weather models.

By the time it was all said and done, an inch – at best – fell here in Brooklyn.

It happens.

I have also done some research, looking to find reports from meteorological professionals (other than Al Gore, Jr.) dating back to last winter and spring predicting a “colder-than-normal” season this winter (in some places, a record cold winter). Unfortunately, I didn’t find too many, save for the few who wrote “Global Warming is Causing Global Cooling” end-of-life-as-we-know-it doomsday pieces. I did, however, find thousands – literally thousands – of articles about the planet’s impending demise due to man-man climate changes.

This is not a slam piece against weather forecasters. I actually admire the profession very much. That isn’t my point.

With unpredictability not uncommon in short-term weather forecasting, and with computer models seemingly yielding more and more inaccuracies – some would say more than just sometimes – it is stunning with how much certitude experts can predict the calamity awaiting mankind due to so-called Global Warming.

And with more winter storms scheduled to hit the American Northeast over the next day or so – and temperatures in Fairbanks, Alaska hovering around two degrees – comes the announcement that the effects of Global Warming are irreversible.

Irreversible.

From Yahoo News:

Climate change is “largely irreversible” for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study’s authors said there was “no going back” after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are “largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped.”

NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to “irreversibly change the planet.”

Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.

The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.

For the next thousand years?

How they know with such confidence that the “irreversible” effects won’t linger for, say, only three hundred years, or five hundred years, is remarkable.

One question … Can I get just one study that proves CO2 levels trigger temperature fluctuations, and not the other way around? Just one? (Okay, that was two).

My guarantee … as more and more people realize that climate conditions fluctuate in spite of human activity, and that the human beings cannot be blamed for altering the weather, these people won’t give a rat’s tush what the temperature is.

That’s because it was never about the Earth.

In other news, it’s cold.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

US WIND CHILL MAP – THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2008

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2009

windchill-1_15_092

I’ve been maxing out my carbon credit cards, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

It’s cold!!!

 -

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

DOWN WITH LIBERTY, UP WITH A STABLE ENVIRONMENT

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2009

climate_change1

If you’ve been thinking of packing up your kit and caboodle and setting up shop in Madison, Wisconsin, you may want to hit the “pause” button on those plans – that is, if you’re a fan of personal liberty and free enterprise. If, however, your focus is one of helping to achieve “environmental sustainability,” then damn the freedom, man. Get your packing tape, load up the U-Haul, get your mail forwarded, say goodbye to that wacky neighbor who always went to the mailbox in his underwear and head to Cheese Country.

Madison, Wisconsin wants your liberty – all in the name of “climate change” – and they’re ready to make such lefty shangri-Las as Berkeley, California look almost moderate in comparison.

It’s about saving the Earth, dammit – and if the citizenry can’t see that, then the government will show them.

Jeff Poor of the Business and Media Institute says that what the city is proposing is “a case of liberalism via central planning gone wild.”

He writes:

According to the “Broad Strategies” section of a meeting agenda recently posted on the City of Madison Web site, an ordinance being considered would force city zoning to account for and mitigate climate change:

Zoning should adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address or mitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use).

Another item in the “Broad Strategies” section has a grim outlook for the future. It includes a proposal that spells out a doomsday scenario – allowing for the city to function should shortages in energy and food occur:

Write the code to allow the city to function when automobile travel will be severely limited and oil-related products, including food and heating fuel, become prohibitively expensive because of the scarcity and high-cost of fuel.

Other proposals throughout the document would push for use of alternative energies (solar, geothermal and wind), conservation, electric cars and urban agriculture. Other more Draconian regulations throughout the document would:

-Limit waterfront development in the name of water sustainability,

-Require two trees to be planted if one is removed from your property

-Limit the “number/density of fast food outlets and drive-through windows” in the name of public health

-Discourage individual parking options to promote public transportation usage.

I can almost hear the cadence of jackbooted horticulturalists emerging from over the hill, armed with shovels and baby Live Oaks, making sure each house has two trees in the ground.

The vagueness and unspecificity of the passage that affords the Madison nannies the ability to “write code to allow the city to function” in the event of some potentially resource-draining circumstance should scare the living hell out of anyone with a reasonably functioning circulatory system. The term “blank check” was devised to describe just such a thing.

Exactly what “code” will be written?

And precisely what will the city be allowed to do to continue to function? Seize personal property on demand? Violate personal rights? Confiscate your children and sell them on E-Bay?

And what of the right to open a business of one’s choosing? What else in the name of the new 21st Century morality – healthcare – will be limited? 

The goal here, as I have written before, must be to make sure that no one ever dies again.

There is much to pick apart and eviscerate here, but I’d like to zoom in on something that most likely would go unnoticed amidst the glut of absurdity coming from the good folks of Madison.

Madison Capitol Building

Madison Capitol Building

Liberals, you’ll have noticed, attempt to personify things to make them more accessible – thus more real.

Liberals are far too deliberate.

If one is asked to “adapt to meet the demands of climate change,” what exactly does that mean? How is that different from, say, “adapting to climate change?”

A heavier coat?

Thicker gloves?

This is no trick question. I pose this in the most literal sense.

What exactly does the phrase “to meet the demands of climate change” mean, and why was it written that way?

(To help illustrate what I’m getting at, change the phraseology by substituting “climate change” with “your boss” and try it again. If someone now suggested that you, as an employee, needed to “adapt to meet the demands of your boss,” it would probably make more sense to you, right? That’s because “your boss” is a living entity capable of “demanding” things from you).

Because “climate change” can now demand things of us, it isn’t just a matter of having to accept fluctuating weather conditions that are beyond our control. “Climate change” is now alive. It is real. It can now be dealt with.

Therefore, liberty can now be constrained for the greater good while limitations are implemented. (We’re talking the survival of Earth here). If we, as humans, can at least deal with climate change, there’s always a chance that positive developments can be affected.

If, however, it is all beyond our control, then the realization that there are things bigger than us settles in … and that is as disturbing a concept to the Left as anything.

The cartoonish idealism of silly liberty may be nice in theory, but it cannot hold a candle to preserving the habitat of the red-horned triple-beaked purple button flapper owl.

Indeed, I am aware that “demands” are placed on us all the time by things that are not specifically human. Our jobs demand things from us, for example. One can even say that certain situations demand us to behave in specific ways if particular results are desired.

But “jobs” are created by people.

The weather is not. It is beyond human control. We cannot do anything to affect it.

Welcome to the liberal mind. 

Government always knows best.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TURN UP THE GOOGLE

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 11, 2009

google-betaMore Google searches needed, please.

With some areas in Alaska dipping into the minus-seventy degree range, record cold temperatures sweeping across Europe, and some climate scientists now believing that the Earth could actually be entering another Ice Age, the answer may be to keep on “searching,” at least according to physicist Alex Wissner-Gross.

He says that running two Google searches from your computer consumes as much energy as boiling water for a cup of tea.

I assume this is a bad thing.

From the Times Online:

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

This story can probably fit neatly into the “Global Warming Is Going To Kill Us All” file … but the file may soon be obsolete – as I (and many many others) have predicted for a long time. Not only is the entire human-induced “global warming” phenomenon proving to be silly science fiction, but many are now wishing that all of it were, in fact, true.

From Pravda, of all places:

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Bring on the heat.

I think it is safe to say that the evidence of an oncoming Ice Age is, at least, as credible as any evidence one may pull out of their agenda-driven top hats to predict a doomed future for Earth due to man-made global warming – but it will be interesting to watch how many stories of a possible coming Ice Age make it into mainstream media news broadcasts and newspapers.

Of course, I still marvel at how often tomorrow’s weather forecast veers off the mark, but that’s me.

The climate, to quote a phrase, is bigger than us all.

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

GLOBAL WARMING FRIGIDITY

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 10, 2009

the planet is heating up

the planet is heating up

Russia may have cut back on natural gas supplies to Europe this week, but they’ve certainly had a whole lot of Siberia to share as global warming continued to keep most of Europe in a deep freeze.

Since last month, global warming frigidity has gripped that continent like Jimmy Carter grips contemptibility.

In Germany, for instance, three deaths have been attributed to the brutal cold. In addition, water ways have frozen over, and ship traffic on the River Elbe north to Hamburg has been stifled.

It is one of the coldest German winters in a century.

In Poland, as many as 83 people (mostly homeless) have died since the beginning over November due to the warming arctic blast.

Heavy snow in France effectively shut down Marseille – a port city in the south – for two days.

In Spain, Madrid’s Barajas Airport saw all four of its runways shut down for four hours after a rare blast of snow wreaked havoc there.

Meanwhile, the International Panel on Climate Change predicts that by the year 2100, half the world could be starving – thanks to global warming.

It predicts a 6 degree Fahrenheit rise in average growing-season temperatures in many areas and a 20 to 40 percent drop in crop yields. The hardest hit will be the tropics and subtropics, home to some of the world’s poorest populations. “You are talking about hundreds of millions of additional people looking for food because they won’t be able to find it where they find it now” [Reuters], said study co-author David Battisti.

That must mean that the colder temperatures get, the better it is for crops.

If that is, in fact, the case, then happy days are here again for the United States. Record harvests could be on the way.

AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist John Kocet writes:

This is about as bad as it gets folks. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like it since 1994. Sure its been very cold at times over the past 14 years, but the total area impacted by this cold wave will be huge. By next Thursday and Friday, extremely cold air will chill the entire area from the Great Plains to the Eastern Seaboard, and the cold is also going to reach the Deep South. Only the far West will be unscathed.

From the central Plains to the Northeast temperatures are going below zero; there is no question about it. Meanwhile, the Upper Midwest and northern New England could experience readings lower than 30 below zero!

One might have to go back to Jan. 1994 to find anything worse. In that bitter outbreak, temperatures went below zero from the central Plains to the East Coast. In New York there is a chance it will go below zero next Thursday or Friday night. The last time New York City experienced a below-zero temperature was Jan. 1994.

Oh, global warming, why do you mock us?

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ON GLOBAL WARMING, ONE QUESTION FOR OBAMA

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 5, 2009

the quest to end denial

the quest to end denial

To start off, let me point out that, as of this writing, it is minus-36 degrees in Fairbanks, Alaska. The high temperature today was minus-28.

Just thought I’d throw that in.

Anyway…

Remember when Barack Obama vowed to end Global Warming denial? (Not just the “earth on the brink of death” ill-effects of the warming itself, but the denial of it).

Back on December 9th of last year, the next President of the United States met in Chicago with the guy who used to be the next President of the United States (and Joe Biden, too) in order to chew on some stale Global Warming snack crackers and reaffirm what will be the Obama Administration’s official policy on hysteria – that the battle against those who continue to deny that the planet is in danger must be swift, vigorous and unrelenting.

The hour-long get-together with Al Gore and Biden prompted The One to say:

“All three of us are in agreement that the time for delay is over. The time for denial is over. We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That is what I intend my administration to do.”

A month before that, at an event hosted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who famously said “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it’s too late”), Obama (in a pre-recorded video message) proclaimed:

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

That sea levels are rising at the same rate they have been for three hundred years shouldn’t be allowed to cloud the issue, of course.

And as Christopher Booker – journalist and author who has sharply criticized the claims of global warming alarmists – wrote in the UK’s Telegraph in November:

Far from global warming having increased the number of droughts, the very opposite is the case. The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century’s 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three.

Recall back in October, 2007 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blamed the California wild fires on global warming:

“As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.”

And who can forget this golden nugget from February of last year, spoken by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

Terrorists kill people, weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill enormous numbers of people, global warming has the potential to kill everybody. This is really just as lethal, it’s just that the results are something we will face long term.

It looks like terrorism is number two with a bullet on the Bloomy Hit Parade.

All of this certitude is setting up a whole lot of people – including the next Chief Executive of the United States – to fall like Niagara flat on their panicked kissers.

My one question, if afforded the opportunity to pose it to our next Commander-In-Chief, would be: Have you, sir, ever actually read any peer-reviewed articles, heard any counter-arguments from any of a multitude of respected scientists, or reviewed any position papers that question the entire man-made global warming position?

Fair question, no?

To this day, there is no scientific evidence of any kind proving that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to warming. In fact, there is more to suggest the reverse is true – that higher CO2 levels have historically followed temperature increases.

In Canada, according to Barry Cooper of the Calgary Herald, the hysteria of Global Warming may be entering a new phase:

globe_2025jan06As James Peden, an atmospheric physicist, said, many scientists “are now searching for a way to back out quietly” from global-warming fearmongering, “without having their professional careers ruined.”

The crux of it is that major research grants and, in this country, prestigious Canada Research Chairs, have been awarded on the assumption something must be done to stop CO2 from destroying the world.

There was even worse news for those who believed in human-caused climate change. Up to now most of the debate, including the notorious intellectual swindle of the hockey stick graph, amounted to what paleoclimatologist Ian Clark called “wiggle watching” –matching the ups and downs of temperature with the ups and downs of CO2 or, say, sun spots. Until recently there was no experimental evidence to decide which wiggle was worth watching.

In 2006, experiments at the Danish National Space Center provided evidence that changes in the magnetic field of the sun can affect not CO2 but water vapour–clouds–which are responsible for up to 95 per cent of the warmth that keeps Earth habitable. Last year the implications finally sunk in.

One has to wonder how long it will take until the community of squiggly-light-bulb green-o-crats, Kyoto knuckleheads, and hysteria-starved mercury jockeys realize that two plus two does not equal twelve – and that includes The One, Senator John McCain, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Paris Hilton, the dolts who run NBC, Elmo from Sesame Street and anyone else mule-headed enough (insert “dumb,” if you like) to stick with this crap.

Like the screeching delirium caused by the threat of homosexual AIDS wiping out large portions of the American population or the shutdown of the entire Western Hemisphere due to the apocalyptic “Y2K” bug, today’s madness – “Global Warming” (or “Climate Change” or “Doomsday – Part Eighteen”) – will be, within most of our lifetimes, exposed as the profound and ridiculous fraud it is, one of the greatest snow jobs (pun intended) ever contrived.

A nice try by the anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-capitalist, anti-big business carbon-credit counters, but it won’t fly for very much longer – except, of course, in universities, public schools, on television, in popular music and motion pictures and anywhere where idiocy is encouraged.

In the meantime, until such a time when the Gore Contingency becomes the fringe on this issue (yeah, right!), people like the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who believes the man-made global warming disaster is a myth, will be ostracized and kept from the EU mainstream as much as possible, as recently depicted in the Times Online:

The European Union’s new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.

But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy – including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases – the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.

That last sentence is critical.

Note that it is Mr. Klaus’ view – that humankind’s activities are not leading to catastrophic climactic consequences – deemed the controversial position. It is a “consider the source” moment. The “community” viewing him as out of step is, of course, the European Union.

Enough said.

(For those familiar with it, a very famous Twilight Zone episode from 1960, “The Private World of Darkness,” comes to mind).

I wonder if Barack Obama has a backup plan – a “jettison” option, if you will - on any references he may make to “global warming” during his inaugural speech – just in case wind chills are hovering around zero on January 20th.

No need to look silly on your first day.

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ON GLOBAL WARMING, ONE QUESTION FOR OBAMA

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 5, 2009

the quest to end denial

the quest to end denial

To start off, let me point out that, as of this writing, it is minus-36 degrees in Fairbanks, Alaska. The high temperature today was minus-28.

Just thought I’d throw that in.

Anyway…

Remember when Barack Obama vowed to end Global Warming denial? (Not just the “earth on the brink of death” ill-effects of the warming itself, but the denial of it).

Back on December 9th of last year, the next President of the United States met in Chicago with the guy who used to be the next President of the United States (and Joe Biden, too) in order to chew on some stale Global Warming snack crackers and reaffirm what will be the Obama Administration’s official policy on hysteria – that the battle against those who continue to deny that the planet is in danger must be swift, vigorous and unrelenting.

The hour-long get-together with Al Gore and Biden prompted The One to say:

“All three of us are in agreement that the time for delay is over. The time for denial is over. We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That is what I intend my administration to do.”

A month before that, at an event hosted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who famously said “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it’s too late”), Obama (in a pre-recorded video message) proclaimed:

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

That sea levels are rising at the same rate they have been for three hundred years shouldn’t be allowed to cloud the issue, of course.

And as Christopher Booker – journalist and author who has sharply criticized the claims of global warming alarmists – wrote in the UK’s Telegraph in November:

Far from global warming having increased the number of droughts, the very opposite is the case. The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century’s 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three.

Recall back in October, 2007 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blamed the California wild fires on global warming:

“As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.”

And who can forget this golden nugget from February of last year, spoken by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

Terrorists kill people, weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill enormous numbers of people, global warming has the potential to kill everybody. This is really just as lethal, it’s just that the results are something we will face long term.

It looks like terrorism is number two with a bullet on the Bloomy Hit Parade.

All of this certitude is setting up a whole lot of people – including the next Chief Executive of the United States – to fall like Niagara flat on their panicked kissers.

My one question, if afforded the opportunity to pose it to our next Commander-In-Chief, would be: Have you, sir, ever actually read any peer-reviewed articles, heard any counter-arguments from any of a multitude of respected scientists, or reviewed any position papers that question the entire man-made global warming position?

Fair question, no?

To this day, there is no scientific evidence of any kind proving that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to warming. In fact, there is more to suggest the reverse is true – that higher CO2 levels have historically followed temperature increases.

In Canada, according to Barry Cooper of the Calgary Herald, the hysteria of Global Warming may be entering a new phase:

globe_2025jan06As James Peden, an atmospheric physicist, said, many scientists “are now searching for a way to back out quietly” from global-warming fearmongering, “without having their professional careers ruined.”

The crux of it is that major research grants and, in this country, prestigious Canada Research Chairs, have been awarded on the assumption something must be done to stop CO2 from destroying the world.

There was even worse news for those who believed in human-caused climate change. Up to now most of the debate, including the notorious intellectual swindle of the hockey stick graph, amounted to what paleoclimatologist Ian Clark called “wiggle watching” –matching the ups and downs of temperature with the ups and downs of CO2 or, say, sun spots. Until recently there was no experimental evidence to decide which wiggle was worth watching.

In 2006, experiments at the Danish National Space Center provided evidence that changes in the magnetic field of the sun can affect not CO2 but water vapour–clouds–which are responsible for up to 95 per cent of the warmth that keeps Earth habitable. Last year the implications finally sunk in.

One has to wonder how long it will take until the community of squiggly-light-bulb green-o-crats, Kyoto knuckleheads, and hysteria-starved mercury jockeys realize that two plus two does not equal twelve – and that includes The One, Senator John McCain, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Paris Hilton, the dolts who run NBC, Elmo from Sesame Street and anyone else mule-headed enough (insert “dumb,” if you like) to stick with this crap.

Like the screeching delirium caused by the threat of homosexual AIDS wiping out large portions of the American population or the shutdown of the entire Western Hemisphere due to the apocalyptic “Y2K” bug, today’s madness – “Global Warming” (or “Climate Change” or “Doomsday – Part Eighteen”) – will be, within most of our lifetimes, exposed as the profound and ridiculous fraud it is, one of the greatest snow jobs (pun intended) ever contrived.

A nice try by the anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-capitalist, anti-big business carbon-credit counters, but it won’t fly for very much longer – except, of course, in universities, public schools, on television, in popular music and motion pictures and anywhere where idiocy is encouraged.

In the meantime, until such a time when the Gore Contingency becomes the fringe on this issue (yeah, right!), people like the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who believes the man-made global warming disaster is a myth, will be ostracized and kept from the EU mainstream as much as possible, as recently depicted in the Times Online:

The European Union’s new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.

But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy – including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases – the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.

That last sentence is critical.

Note that it is Mr. Klaus’ view – that humankind’s activities are not leading to catastrophic climactic consequences – deemed the controversial position. It is a “consider the source” moment. The “community” viewing him as out of step is, of course, the European Union.

Enough said.

(For those familiar with it, a very famous Twilight Zone episode from 1960, “The Private World of Darkness,” comes to mind).

I wonder if Barack Obama has a backup plan – a “jettison” option, if you will - on any references he may make to “global warming” during his inaugural speech – just in case wind chills are hovering around zero on January 20th.

No need to look silly on your first day.

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

2008 – THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE MYTH?

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2008

Let’s see … there’s that famous photograph of the sailor kissing that gal on VJ Day in Times Square … and the one of astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the surface of the moon … and the one of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima on February 23. 1945 …

three-picsc

And, of course, how can we forget one of several different history-making shots featuring a lone, clinging-to-dear-life polar bear stuck on a rapidly disappearing block of ice somewhere in the steadily warming Arctic Zone?

polar

These are the indelible images that serve as bookmarks to history – unforgettable moments forever captured in time. These are, in fact, the days of our lives. (Cue the hourglass).

Or maybe not …

The question of the hour, a mere four days before the launch of a new year … Will 2008 be forever remembered as the year man-made global warming was “disproved?” Will those pictures of cute little polar bears floating away on chunks of disconnected glacier ice fade away into the ash heap of desktop wallpaper history?

It’s a shame.

Those polar-pics had a certain urgency and power to them – like a migraine or bad gas.

According to Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph.com website, the beginning of the end of the myth is at hand.

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare.

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artifact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades … panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for “combating climate change” with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Let’s hear it for the “debate is over” detachment of humanity – which, incidentally, includes out next President.

A question I have asked for a long time – and one worth asking again: If it were proven unequivocally - beyond a shadow of a doubt – that rising global temperatures are in no way connected or related  to human activity, would leftists even care anymore?

*ahem*

You know the answer.

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

YOUR STRING OF CHRISTMAS LIGHTS IS KILLING US

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 27, 2008

xmasBeing good for the sake of goodness alone – without all of that God nonsense mixed in – may indeed be one of the more industrious advertising campaigns implemented by atheists this holiday season, but fear not … environmentalists aren’t too happy with Christmas either. In fact, according to scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia, Christmas may be ruining the planet.

If you happen to be one of those self-involved, less-than-conscientious observers of Christmas who bothers to decorate his or her home with holiday lights, without as much as a stitch of consideration for what you are doing to the environment, you are dead-red guilty of contributing to the demise of the Earth.

In other words, your string of Christmas lights is killing us.

From the Courier Mail in Australia:

Scientists have warned that Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste and urged people to get energy efficient festive bulbs.

CSIRO researchers said householders should know that each bulb turned on in the name of Christmas will increase emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dr Glenn Platt, who leads research on energy demand, said Australia got 80 per cent of its electricity by burning coal which pumps harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

The culprit here is electricity – or rather, “centralized carbon intensive, coal-based power stations” that produce the electricity needed to power these little flickering balls of grim death.

“Energy efficient bulbs, such as LEDs, and putting your Christmas lights on a timer are two very easy ways to minimize the amount of electricity you use to power your lights.”

Dr Platt added: “For a zero-emission Christmas light show, you may consider using solar powered lights …”

That sounds so remarkably festive, doesn’t it? A “zero-emission Christmas light show.” Someone ought to compose a song.

While the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has not – repeat not – been proven to cause a rise in surface temperatures (as the Al Gore Green-o-crats would have you believe), I’m willing to pretend for a moment it does.

My question then would be … can we possibly get more cars on the road? More smoke stacks a-pumping? More incandescent light bulbs a-burning?

If growing carbon dioxide levels do lead to rising temperatures, we need more of it here in the United States.

I assure you, I did my part. I even had Christmas lights burning inside the damn mailbox.

And to all of you across the nation who experienced some of the worst ice storms in decades, please accept my most sincere apologies. I strung up as many lights as I possibly could.

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

US WIND CHILL MAP – SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2008

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2008

uschill

 

 

That’s a whole hell of a lot of below-zero wind chills, isn’t it?

Any map that cold ought to have a damn space heater or two attached to it, don’t you think?

 

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

TOO COLD TO BE ANYTHING BUT GLOBAL WARMING

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 21, 2008

global_warming_or_global_coolingAdmittedly, the ornery side of me wonders if every now and again, from the privacy of his organically constructed eco-friendly multimedia room, Al Gore lets loose with a “Dammit!” or two (or maybe something with a little more octane) when he hears about the debilitating ice storms plaguing entire sections of the country.

You’d think Gore would be grinding the enamel off his teeth when stories about snowstorms in Las Vegas and New Orleans cross the wire. I could even see him pouting like a baby aboard his private jet (the one that whisks him from disaster seminar to disaster seminar) after reading about record-breaking low temperatures being reported across the globe.

Poor Tipper.

I pray she isn’t left to take the brunt of his frustrations as the frosty repercussions of a planet on the brink of Global Warming calamity continue to mount.

“Can I get you anything, Al, honey?

“Dammit, bring me my maps, Tipper!

The fact is … Global Warming is producing one hell of a wintry weekend from sea to shining sea.

Damn you, Global Warming! Why do you smite us?

Of course, I am way out-of-step.

I’m still stuck in the moth-eaten age of “Global Warming.” We’ve now evolved into a new heterogeneous era of “Global Climate Change,” where every conceivable computer model predicts every conceivable meteorological scenario to be the result of man’s inhumanity to the environment – even if it isn’t warming, and even if it isn’t global.

That way, human beings can feel guilty about themselves no matter what they do.

The reality is … the hysterical left (along with a few in the McCain/Schwarzenegger wing of the Republican Party) doesn’t bother with the observable to draw conclusions. They know that the debate is over. The Messiah himself has said so. Climate change is real, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, even though it’s in our best interest to act quickly before it’s too late, regardless of the fact that we’re helpless to save ourselves, unless we start thinking green right now.

How exactly will the warming affect us on Sunday?

Through Sunday, 3 to 6 inches is forecast in Minnesota and lower Michigan and up to a couple of inches in northern Illinois, with cold winds gusting to 40 mph creating areas of blowing and drifting snow that will reduce visibility and create hazardous winter driving conditions.

The storm will intensify on Sunday as it moves to the East Coast, producing heavy snow across the Northeast interior. As much as a foot of snow will fall from northeast New York into northern New England and Canada’s Maritime Provinces.

Boston will get another blast of heavy snow, with 3 to 6 inches forecast in the city, before a change to rain at the height of the storm.

The New York City metropolitan area will likely get a mix of snow, ice and rain, while Philadelphia will deal with an icy mix changing to rain in the morning. After getting mostly rain on Friday, Pittsburgh will be hit with up to a few inches of snow Sunday.

Parts of the Upper Midwest are expected to experience wind chills in the -40 degree range. Even Chicago is expected to feel like it’s below zero.

Is there anyone out there, by a show of hands, who wouldn’t like a little bit of genuine global warming right about now?

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

DOOM IS ALREADY HERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 15, 2008

melting20glaciersJust between you and me … I love doomsday movies. It’s a weakness.

The more inane and more incredible the premise, the more I enjoy it. I’m not sure what that says about me, but as long as buildings are being destroyed by monsters somewhere, continents are being threatened by hurtling meteors, and cities are being sucked into the ocean by Richter-scale shattering earthquakes, I’m happy. (I’m talking in the movies).

This is probably why I have such an affinity for global warming stories that forecast disaster for the Earth.

Unfortunately, so much absurdity has been injected into the discussion these days that to parody them is nearly impossible anymore. A disaster film about the effects a billion simultaneously melting glaciers, for instance, would more likely be seen as an instructional video rather than silly entertainment.

A few years ago while working on a project with the Young Republican Club of New York City, the idea came up that we could create a skit (for a TV presentation that never came to fruition) where a hard-nosed news anchor reported the threat of global warming being so serious that global cooling would break out. It sounded so ridiculous  – and potentially funny – at the time.

Today, it passes for just another disastrous by-product of the human race out of control.

Take, for instance, this paragraph from one of the better doomsday stories I’ve read in a while, composed by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, published yesterday:

Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

There it is.

That temperatures are actually falling now illustrates how fast the world is warming.

Indeed, the article is worth a read, if only for the use of the phrase “ticking time bomb” in the first paragraph and the equally endearing “time is running out” in the second. 

Who says objectivity is dead?

And for those who believe that the doom has already settled in, you may be right. Borenstein writes:

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

Damn. That can’t be good.

The overall gist of the article is that new President will have very little time to get something done to save this planet.

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

Translation: Obama has put into place a team of radical leftist enivironmental freak jobs who will look to demonize business and industry by implementing “green” standards that will hurt the country.

Period.

Remember … Obama is a centrist.

-

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

WARMING CAUSES COOLING CAUSES EVERYTHING

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 7, 2008

From the “nothing else needs to be said” file …

Pundits, talk-show hosts, op-ed writers, cable news rambling heads and low-level blogging types (yours truly) can often be helpful in dissecting the comings and goings in this world, making them easier to comprehend or put into context – sometimes to the benefit of critical thought, other times to the determent. However, occassions do arise where it simply isn’t necessary to analyze and break down the often complicated stories and events of our time to be able to make some sense of them.

the world hangs in the balance

the world hangs in the balance

There are times when a “let it speak for itself” approach is sufficient.

This is one of those instances, I suspect.

On the front page of Drudge Report, as of early Sunday morning (Eastern Time), there were links to two global warming stories – a fairly common occurance there.

This particular time, however, there was something funny about them - they way they were posted on the page.  It was almost deliberately comical.

The first was a Reuters article with the headline, “Climate Protestors Demand Swift UN Action.” (That, in itself should be enough to have you wetting your inseam with laughter. The only thing the United Nations accomplishes in a timely manner is passing resolutions against Israel).

The second headline, directly below it read, “2008 will be Coolest Year of the Decade.”

I giggled. I thought of “The Onion” momentarily – the first story about the rallying wackjobs who believe the world is about to sizzle itself to death, and the second story – just below it – talking about how cold its getting.

After digging a bit deeper, however, I quickly realized that both articles were actually saying the same thing (as so many of them do) – that we are doomed (or almost doomed).

The first article’s opening sentences are indicative of the hysteria that has grabbed the environmental left by the short hairs:

Thousands of climate protesters, some dressed as polar bears, devils or penguins, demanded on Saturday swifter action from the United Nations to combat global warming. Several thousand more protesters took part in a march through London to demand “urgent and radical action” from the British government on climate change.

Costumes are always a winner. Penguin-suit wearing freak balls always put me in a warm and fuzzy mood.

“So far I think it’s going really slowly,” Susann Scherbarth from Friends of the Earth in Germany said of the talks in the western city of Poznan. She and other protesters in Poznan waved a banner reading: “Stop clowning around, get serious about climate action.”

Typical, off-the-rack goofballism. What could be more serious than a devil outfit?

Besides, there is something marvelously insane about watching global warming protestors bundled up in winter clothing, screaming things.

But wait … it actually gets better with the second article. Apparently, the cooling that’s happening doesn’t mean there isn’t still dangerous warming going on. The path to Earthly destruction (I’m happy to report) remains in tact. Below the main headline is the money quote – a sub-headline which reads in part: “… cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists.”

That I have to pose this next question shows the level of absurdity this debate has descended to … but if cooling temperatures are not evidence of the slowing of global warming, what the hell is?

(This is where I turn at the camera with one of those great asides, one of those Jack Benny “looks” where nothing needs to be said -  a “let it speak for itself” moment. For those not familiar with Benny, think Jim on The Office).

_

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.