Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘environmentalism’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 22, 2010


Temperatures in and around New York City, over the past several days, had been almost August-like. A couple of days ago, in fact,, the mercury was aggressively flirting with the dreaded 90 degree plateau. I say “dreaded” because I freely admit to being in the minority when it comes to warm weather. I simply hate the heat. Summer – outside of baseball, vacations and longer days – is my least favorite season, followed closely by winter (although I make concessions for Christmas when I actually hope for winter-like weather).

I am a spring and autumn man, with leanings toward the fall.

I’m one of those who will gladly take 60 degrees over 80 degrees any day.

While in the car over the past several days, with 80-plus degree temps becoming the norm, I’ve been hearing the local DJs and weather experts make exuberant comments like, “A gorgeous day in New York City!” and “As beautiful as it gets!”

One weather guy actually said, “If it were like this year round, there’d never be anything to be sad about!”

Obviously, he didn’t mean it literally (seeing as there are plenty of grumpy people in warmer climates), but his sentiment was universal among the radio personalities in New York I had the chance to sample over the past few days: heat is good!

“It’s gonna feel like paradise today!”

“Get out there and love it while it lasts!”

Blah-blah-blah …

Setting aside my personal animus for any temperature above 80 degrees, I couldn’t help but shake my head and laugh while listening to these people sing the praises of the unseasonable heat wave.

How ironic, I thought.

These radio folks were the very same ones who, a couple of months earlier, were positively crazed with Earth Day and the potentially horrific effects of global warming. These same hot-weather cheerleaders were only a couple of short months ago warning everyone within earshot of the impending doom awaiting all earthlings if conscientious enviro-friendly anti-warming action wasn’t taken immediately. I couldn’t as much as spit at a radio that day without hearing something about Earth Day, the environment, the climate and anything “green.”

It was all-Earth Day all day.

In fact, it received more play than National Holocaust Remembrance Day and Washington’s Birthday combined – times ten. These summer-loving microphone jockeys spent every possible moment sharing “green” tips, planet-saving helpful hints, environmentally gracious suggestions and overall climate-protecting measures. Indeed, if I had a dollar for every time one of these retro-hippie DJs and hippy-dippy weathermen went on about climate change and global warming, I could almost afford a McDonald’s Value Meal in Manhattan.

How … discerning.

Can I then assume – with global warming and climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing and critical issues – that hot can be selectively good? Like, for instance, after a long, cold winter of being cooped up in the house reading The Daily Cos?

And if there are sun tans still to be worked on, bikinis to be worn, sand castles to be built and boardwalk concessions yet to be patronized, are rising temperatures then acceptable to the greenies? At least some of the time?

And if the environmentalists truly believe that a cooler planet is better, why ask us to be “green” of all things? Doesn’t “green” imply growth, warmth and prosperity? Don’t trees, plants, shrubs, leaves and grass generally thrive in warm weather? Isn’t that when they are at their “greenest?”

Leaves actually fall off and die in cooler weather.

Most trees become bare when the cold sets in.

Grass often turns brown in the winter.

Shouldn’t the color of environmentalism be brown? Or gray?
wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010

As I did last year, I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you how I intend to spend Earth day, 2010.

As a rule, I prefer to keep the details of my personal life as private as possible, but in this age of environmental awareness and climate dysfunctionality, I thought it might be illuminating to share some of the more choice tidbits that are taking up slots on my Earth Day docket, the forty-first annual Earth Day.

I’ll forego the morning hygiene rituals and move right into the meat of my morning.

The first thing I will do upon rising is run out to the driveway and warm up my diesel-engine car for thirty minutes (even though it doesn’t need it). I will then enlist my twin daughters to help me turn on every television and radio in the house after giving each toilet a good flush. I will, of course, make sure we throw sizeable wads of triple-ply bathroom tissue into each bowl before doing so.

And don’t think I won’t be scolding them if they forget to leave the refrigerator door open.

I will, of course, then have them separate the laundry into thirty-six different loads and place them on the floor around the washing machine so that we might needlessly run the washer and dryer for three weeks.

After we finish breakfast – which we will eat on styrofoam plates – I will max out my carbon credit card by throwing the empty plastic milk container into the regular garbage pail instead of the recyclables can.

(I’m a wild man, I know).

I will then drive my daughters to school while puffing on a cigar with the window open, making sure the exhaled smoke fills as much of the lower atmosphere as possible. By the time I return home – emitting fifty miles worth of diesel engine pollutants into the air along the way – I will stop off to buy paper towels and more bathroom tissue. (While I do keep Handi Wipes in the kitchen under the sink, I find reusable rags somewhat disgusting. It’s easier and far more satisfying to fill my garbage cans – and ultimately the landfills – with endless clumps of paper towels.

In fact, I know I will get so caught up in the spirit of the day that I will purposely create spills in the kitchen just to go through an entire roll of super-absorbancy paper towels before 11AM. It will be as exhilarating as it will be inspiring … and messy.

As far as bathroom tissue is concerned, let’s just say there won’t be many septic tanks sending me happy notes.

I will then walk around the house arbitrarily spraying aerosol cans into the air.

Borrowing my friend’s fossil-fuel munching Hummer, I plan on driving around in circles until I find a Chinese Restaurant that specializes in MSG-laden foods and uses only energy-inefficient gas guzzlers to make their neighborhood deliveries.

Following lunch, I will go back to the supermarket and buy up all of their reusable “enviro-friendly” green shopping bags so that everyone who visits the store after me can get their groceries stuffed into those landfill choking “plastic” bags.

Before returning home, I will pull off to the side of the road and let the Hummer idle for three-and-a-half hours while I cut up the reusable grocery bags into kitty litter box liners.

Then, as I pull into my driveway, I will remember that I need to go out and run twelve more errands. I will drive the Hummer into Manhattan and purchase a little egg timer (as suggested by some of the Earth Day literature I had been looking at yesterday) so that I might be able to time my showers in the future to save water … and the planet.

Baths kill.

When I finish with my dozen errands, I will drop off the Hummer at my friend’s place and sit in my idling diesel car for fifty-eight minutes as I reflect on my busy afternoon, puffing on yet another cigar, contemplating the earth’s fragility and the Mets’ lousy offense.

Later, I hope  to find some time to plant a tree in honor of Earth Day, as President Barack Obama and former-President Bill Clinton did last year, but I’ll almost certainly wind up eating two Yodels and cleaning up after the dog instead.

After a quick bout of global warming-inducing flatulence, I will watch an episode of “The Critic,” take a Tylenol, and go to sleep.

It will be a day I’ll never remember.

Happy Earth Day everyone!

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, environmentalism, Global Warming, humor, Liberalism, Science, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010

Oh yeah …

And the Alaskan Glaciers aren’t melting quite as much as originally thought either – which means sea levels aren’t rising as quickly as advertised.

Go figure.

So, instead of melting Alaskan ice contributing .0067 inches more water a year to world sea levels – which is a highly questionable calculation anyway – it turns out it is only contributing .0047 inches a year. That means it would take two centuries for world sea levels to rise nearly – but not quite – one whole inch.


Still, don’t be surprised if cities like New York, Miama and Los Angeles – coastal metroplexes – become barren wastelands over the next several milenia.

Perhaps people ought to think about packing up shop now, while traffic is still good, and head for higher ground.

From Science Daily:

The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says not so fast.

Previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40-plus years, according to Erik Schiefer, a Northern Arizona University geographer who coauthored a paper in the February issue of Nature Geoscience that recalculates glacier melt in Alaska.

The research team, led by Étienne Berthier of the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography at the Université de Toulouse in France, says that glacier melt in Alaska between 1962 and 2006 contributed about one-third less to sea-level rise than previously estimated.

Incidentally, the forecast for Fairbanks, Alaska calls for temperaures to be below freezing for the next several days – including a high temperature of 9 degrees on Saturday.

I hate when Alaskan ice melts in subfreezing temperatures.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2010

Recently, in a post called “And the Myth Keeps Unraveling – No Global Warming For the Past 15 Years,” lamenting over the fact that the mainstream media in the United States has been mute on the continuing exposure of the global warming hoax, I wrote:

Most ironic is that all of the evidence – yes, genuine evidence – suggests that the man-made global warming crisis is nothing but a hyper-hysterical cartoon, promulgated and promoted by the most unscientific methods, ubiquitous with manipulated (or made-up) data and anecdotal jabber… all for the sake of pursuing a leftist, anti-capitalist agenda.

It has all but been ignored by the American media.

Where is Dateline NBC?

Where is 20/20?

In response, a blogger called Bazooka Joe wrote:

Where is YOUR EVIDENCE??? Why not post your evidence to prove Global Warming is a sham??

Ironically, his response illustrates my point – namely that the mainstream media has been embarrassingly silent on this entire matter. There has been a literal cavalcade of evidence suggesting that the entire man-made global warming story is nothing but an unadulterated fraud.

Kudos to the British press, incidentally, for being the main source for almost all of this information.

(Remember when the America press did stuff like that?)

To being with, Bazooka Joe … since the alarmists, enviro-fascists and hysterical left are the ones making the claim that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise, which in turn is placing the planet in imminent peril, the burden of proof lies with them.

Unfortunately for their side, they have failed at every turn to make the case – every turn.

To this point, there is not one scintilla of data (i.e., evidence) showing that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, as asserted by the likes of King Hysteric, Al Gore. In fact, a closer look at King Gore’s famous hockey stick charts purportedly showing that increased CO2 levels trigger temperature boosts actually suggests that the opposite may be the case.

There is not a neutron’s worth of scientific evidence that human activity is causing temperatures to go up, nor is there anything to back up the claims that the planet is in danger. Every so-called bit of proof put forth by the enviro-fascists is either inconclusive, irrelevant, anecdotal or an outright misrepresentation. There is nothing – repeat nothing – scientific about the so-called causes of global warming and the so-called effects of such warming, nor is there anything of any kind proving that human beings are contributing anything to such phenomena.

It is all nonsense.

However, for the sake of this discussion – and even though the burden of proof does not lie on the side of the rational among us – allow me to enlighten you, Bazooka Joe, with genuine facts (i.e., evidence) that you can sink your teeth into.

During a twenty year stretch – from 1970 to 1990 – 4,500 surface-temperature weather stations in the United States went away – from a count of about 6,000 to around 1,500. As Mark Landsbaum wrote in his remarkable article “What To Say To A Global Warming Alarmist,” that decrease “coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase.”

It turns out that most of those “deleted” weather stations were in colder regions.

Let’s not forget all of the cold weather stations taken offline when the old Soviet Union fell. Coincidentally enough, “global warming” started kicking in right around that time.

This isn’t conjecture, Bazooka, this is fact.

One of the other ugly realities unearthed by investigators in the now infamous batch of leaked ClimateGate e-mails from the East Anglia Research Center – called RussiaGate by Landbaum – is the fact that temperature readings from the coldest regions of Russia were omitted when calculating global surface temperature averages.


It drove “average temperatures up about half a degree.”

This isn’t conjecture, Bazooka, this is fact.

A huge part of the IPCC’s Climate Change Report, which calls for “capping manmade greenhouse gases,” is based on no less than sixteen – count ’em sixteen – nonpeer reviewed reports from an advocacy group called World Wildlife Fund.

Nonpeer reviewed, Bazooka.

Sounds more like politics than science, don’t you think?

The same is true for the IPCC’s claim that global warming is destroying the world’s coral reefs. The panel cited Greenpeace literature, not peer reviewed science.

Think about this: If a group advocating for something leftists hate – like teen abstinence, for instance – made their “scientific” claims based on anecdotal literature, it would have been laughed out of coherence.

It should also be noted that IPCC claims that global warming is killing the rainforests was also based on nonpeer reviewed sources. As Landsbaum writes: It “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The ‘research’ was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning.”

The lie that the Himalayas will be without ice in twenty-five years is also not scientifically based. It was something taken from an article in a hiking magazine.

This isn’t conjecture, Bazooka, this is fact.

Let’s not forget all of the Freedom of Information requests for global warming documents – ninety-five in all – refused by East Anglia University, according to the British Government. Does it not raise any flags that one of the three institutions on the entire planet that collects global warming data did not want to share its information?

Why is that?

None of this is conjecture, Bazooka, this is all fact.

Perhaps you can answer the question I’ve posed on this blog repeatedly for almost two years: What should the temperature be right now, Bazooka? What should the weather patterns look like? Keep in mind there has been no global warming for at least fifteen years, according to the lord of modern global warming “science,” Phil Jones. If that’s not an indication that global warming is not happening, what is, Bazooka?

Factor in all the substantiated reports of missing and manipulated data, and you’ve got enough “evidence” that something is awry in Climate Change Land.

Incidentally, I tip my hat to Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma. He definitely gets it. He wants an investigation.

Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media writes:

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) (yesterday) asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Science Fiction.

Nice job, Senator.

Remember, Bazooka Joe, we’re talking evidence here. Practically every claim being made by the enviro-Nazis of a globe teetering on the brink of irreversible damage has been refuted – and then some. Trust me, Bazooka, it is everywhere – except the American press.

All evidence suggests that the world is not in peril due to human activity. All evidence suggests that the hysterical left hasn’t a leg to stand on based on two decades of doomsday assertions. All evidence suggests that real scientific study cannot substantiate the claims of a planet with a fever.

Yes, ice melts. But ice expands as well. Both have been going on for quite some time.

Yes, sea levels rise. But they always have.

Yes, it gets hot in the summer, and it snows in the winter. Alert the media.

Yes, the world has warmed before – like when all that ice from the Ice Age somehow went away without the benefit of combustible engines raping the environmental integrity of the planet.

Yes, the world has cooled – like with the onset of the Ice Age.

Let me know if you need any further evidence, Bazooka Joe.

I’m happy to help anytime.

And thanks for visiting.

wordpress statistics

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


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009

Lord Christopher Smith

Lord Christopher Smith

There are those who go out and create things and those who have contempt for the people who do. There are those who innovate and those who castigate. There are those who believe in the power of the individual and those who put their faith in the state. There are those with common sense and those who are liberal. There are those who understand that climates fluctuate (and always have) and those who thrive on the hysteria of believing the planet is soon to be trampled by carbon footprints.

Enter Lord Smith of Finsbury – British Labour party politician, former cabinet member, former Member of Parliament, Chairman of the Environment Agency, meteorological academician.

In the great big world of pretend, the certainty of a planet on the brink of ruination due to out-of-control carbon emissions is a somber one. In the land of make believe, there is nothing more serious, no greater threat to humanity – not terrorism, not war, not economic strife. All roads lead to polar bears adrift on blocks of ice.

Finsbury knows something must be done.

According to this cerebral powerhouse, all British citizens should be allotted an annual carbon ration – a kind of carbon credit card – which “will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

There would, of course, be penalties for those who exceed their carbon emission limits.

No, really.

From the UK Telegraph:

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

How would such a thing work? Would someone who reached their carbon emissions limit be forbidden by the government from, say, buying more gas for their car? And if that someone’s budget doesn’t allow for the purchase of more carbon credits, is that someone out of luck? Can he or she no longer work? Will the green shirts come swooping in on their environmentally friendly bikes and haul that someone away? Will taxes be raised so more money could become available, via government grants and loans (or welfare), to the people who cannot afford to buy more credits?

Is leftism an inherent disease or is it spread through casual contact?

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances. He said: “A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.”

However, some have criticised the move as “Orwellian” and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.

Damn those bankers!

Damn them!

wordpress statistics

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


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 »


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 »


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.


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 25, 2009

toilet paperThis is not exactly the type of news one likes to wake up to – and I’m willing to bet that except for tree-huggers and squiggly-light-bulb loving greenies, this will not go over particularly well.

You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

Or perhaps more appropriately stated, you can bet your bottom paper on that.

It’s a given among the sane-minded that hardcore environmentalists are a crazed if not consistently annoying bunch. More often than not, their hysterically sappy claims and over-the-top campaigns to save the planet from certain death can be laughed at before being dismissed entirely by those of us still on a first-name basis with our brains.

But there are those rare, notable occasions when even their mindless delirium treads on territory that one not dare joke about.

Some things are taboo.

There is much I can take from these whack-job environmentalists, but when they threaten to wage war on my fluffy, puffy, cushiony, multi-ply toilet paper, you can rest assured, I will not go down quietly.

It’s on.

No buts about that.

David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post writes:

There is a battle for America’s behinds.

It is a fight over toilet paper: the kind that is blanket-fluffy and getting fluffier so fast that manufacturers are running out of synonyms for “soft” (Quilted Northern Ultra Plush is the first big brand to go three-ply and three-adjective).

It’s a menace, environmental groups say — and a dark-comedy example of American excess.

The reason, they say, is that plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. They want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods.

It has been slow going. Big toilet-paper makers say that they’ve taken steps to become more Earth-friendly but that their customers still want the soft stuff, so they’re still selling it.

Let me be clear.

I do not want, nor do I accept, any manufacturer of plush, soft, multi-layered bathroom tissue becoming Earth-friendly. I know what that means (as do millions of others who need the security and comfort of plush cleaning materials): coarse, restaurant-grade, scratchy, skin-scraping, copy machine consistent paper.

Ouch, dammit.

I want – nay, demand – toilet paper that is as unfriendly to the Earth as it is friendly to the tush. I work hard. I’ve earned it. And despite what these bellyaching, scared-of-their-own-shadow doom-and-gloomers say, I’ve not hurt my planet one dollop by relying on the good stuff.

Toilet paper is far from being the biggest threat to the world’s forests: together with facial tissue, it accounts for 5 percent of the U.S. forest-products industry, according to industry figures. Paper and cardboard packaging makes up 26 percent of the industry, although more than half is made from recycled products. Newspapers account for 3 percent.

But environmentalists say 5 percent is still too much.

Felling these trees removes a valuable scrubber of carbon dioxide, they say. If the trees come from “farms” in places such as Brazil, Indonesia or the southeastern United States, natural forests are being displaced. If they come from Canada’s forested north — a major source of imported wood pulp — ecosystems valuable to bears, caribou and migratory birds are being damaged.

And, activists say, there’s just the foolish idea of the thing: old trees cut down for the briefest and most undignified of ends.

“It’s like the Hummer product for the paper industry,” said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We don’t need old-growth forests . . . to wipe our behinds.”

Ahh, I see. It comes down to whether or not they think we really need three-ply toilet paper to perform our hygenic tasks.

Who the hell do they think they are?

Hey greenies … butt out of our butts, okay?

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 23, 2009

un headquartersIndeed, these are the types of stories that so flow with delectable irony that to comment on them seems almost like cheating.

Still, I haven’t the willpower to resist.

If the ever-worsening condition of the planet due to man-made global warming can be quantified in part by the global footprints we leave behind through our actions, then this week in New York City is helping to assure that there is no hope whatsoever for our ailing globe. As world leaders gather in the Big Apple to address the ever-nauseating, never-relevant United Nations Summit on Climate Change, the carbon footprints these environmental warriors are leaving behind is nothing short of catastrophic – if you are inclined to hysteria.

Mark Knoller at Political Hotsheet writes:

It happens every autumn: midtown Manhattan becomes the motorcade capital of the world. Each foreign leader in town has a convoy of vehicles. Some of them, like President Obama’s motorcade, are 20-to-30 vehicles in length. It’s so long – it seems that when the front of it reaches the U.N., the back end is still back at his hotel.

Exacerbating the annual exercise in diplomatic gridlock are police actions, blocking intersections and closing streets for security to facilitate motorcade movements. It renders countless other vehicles immobile while waiting for motorcades to pass, their engines idling but still blowing exhaust into the midtown air

Does it undermine the goal of the climate change summit and cause the pledges of environmental concern to ring hollow?

Asked about it, White House climate change negotiator Todd Sterns had a suggestion.

“I think the U.N. should make a pledge to electric vehicle motorcades within five years,” he said.

Right. As soon as all U.N. diplomats pay their parking tickets.

Former Vice President Al Gore, purported to be on his private jet heading for a Global Warming symposium, could not be reached for comment.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 22, 2009

Do as I say, not as I do

Do as I say, not as I do

If you haven’t done so already, please stop whatever you’re doing, suspend anything and everything you may be involved in – except reading this particular blog entry, of course – and heed the words you are about to ingest. Those of you who choose to waste their focus and concerns on such passe things as the War Against Islamo-Fascism (or other right-wing concoctions) not only directly place the lives of their fellow human beings in imminent peril, but also threaten the very well-being and future of the planet.

There are real issues to tend to.

It isn’t about good versus evil. Rather, it is about green versus brown, cold versus hot, envirnomentalism versus dastardly capitalism.

With our globe hanging in the balance, thanks to the ongoing ravages being inflicted on the planet by humankind, the latest admonishions from Great Britian’s foremost thinker and climatologist, Prince Charles, are as relevant as ever. His warning is racing around the globe like angry greenhouse gas molecules on steroids.

We had best pay attention.

The future King of England is urging humans, wherever they may roam – in the name of reducing crabin emissions – to abandon their motor cars in favor of public transportation and walking.

Andrew Pierce from the Telegraph.UK website writes:

The Prince, who has two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and still drives an Aston Martin given to him by the Queen on his 21st birthday, said developers had a duty to put public transport and the pedestrian at the heart of their housing schemes.
Speaking about the “domination of the car over the pedestrian”, the future King said: “We must surely be able to organise ourselves… in ways in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

The Prince said the principle of “elevating the pedestrian above the car” was one of the guiding factors of Poundbury – his model development in Dorset. The importance of “pedestrian friendly public space” is central to the Poundbury ethos.

He said that his architectural charity – the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment – was creating a “natural house” using green materials such as clay blocks and sheep’s wool for insulation. It is taking shape at the Building Research Establishment’s Innovation Park in Watford.

Did you catch that? Clay blocks and sheep’s wool.


And seeing as nothing quite brings home the point better than leading by example, it is not unreasonable to inquire of the Prince how long the transformation from stone and brick to mud and fur will take at Buckingham Palace?

What, pray tell, oh future King of England, are the electricity bills at Buckingham Palace each month?

Is the bathroom tissue at the Palace (or on your jet, or on your yacht) single-ply, easily-degradable, restaurant-grade paper, oh King-to-be?

And do you use only one square at a time?

As one blogger wrote, “When was the last time this pampered pooch walked anywhere?”

Another wrote, “On your bike, mate!”


In other news, the world is not warming, it has been a very quiet Atlantic hurricane season, and Michael Jackson is still dead.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 14, 2009

Such is the nature of the blogosphere … an interesting idea, picture or quote pops up somewhere and before you know you it, it has spread across cyberspace quicker than Barack Obama can febreze the White House bathroom after sneaking a cigarette.

In my view, as long as proper credit is given to the originator of the content, it is perfectly alright to spread it around. It is, after all, the very heart and soul of blogging.

Thus, shamelessly swiping these two pictures from the great Proof Positive blog, who shamelessly swiped them from the equally great Say Anything blog, here is a study in practical environmentalism.

Guess which of these pictures was taken after a rally attended by limited-government, right-wing, free-market types, and which one was taken after a huge gathering of Obama worshippers.

Hint: Which group believes in personal responsibility?

DC_after the inauguration

DC_after the tea party


If you guessed that the garbage-strewn scene was taken after a gathering of Obamacrat masses, you were right! It was actually taken after the President’s annointment ceremony in January in Washington, D.C.

Contrast that to the “clean” scene following this weekend’s DC Tea Party.

As Rob at Say Anything writes: Moral of the story: Conservatives clean up after themselves. Liberals expect other people to do it for them.

Posted in environmentalism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2009


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 »


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 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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2009


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:

February 26, 2009
Near-real-time data now available:

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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 28, 2009

From the bottom of my … well, bottom, I assure you, that even if I was hoodwinked into believing that the Earth was trembling precariously on the brink of calamity due to the excesses and indulgences of human activity, I just couldn’t get this green – not in good conscience. And if ever I were forced to do so, you can bet your bottom dollar (pun intended) it’s because someone either had a firearm pressed to my temple, I was a prisoner of war, or I was convinced that huge prize money was somehow involved.

What on Earth am I talking about?

toiletwipesReusable toilet wipes, of course – brought to you by the good folks at who encourage you to support “a natural lifestyle.”

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Wallypop also offers reusable monthly “cycle pads” for women, as well as more “conventional” items such as handkerchiefs, diapers and breast pads – all in pretty designs and patterns. They even have reusable Elvis Presley sandwich wraps and snack bags.

Here’s what they say about their toilet wipes:

As seen on The Drudge Report and Australian News!

“Alright,” you say, “You’ve convinced me about cloth diapers, and I understand using cloth gift bags and napkins. But toilet paper??” For some people, making the switch to cloth toilet wipes is a huge leap, that’s true. But it doesn’t need to be!

Using cloth toilet wipes actually has many advantages. For one, it’s a lot more comfortable and soft on your most delicate body parts. It’s also more economical, uses less paper, and saves you those late-night trips to the store. And cloth wipes can be used wet without any of the sopping disintegration that regular toilet paper is prone to.

And for those of you who may be thinking, “You know, this sounds like something I might like to try because I love the Earth so much, but what about odor? I don’t want my Febreze bill to go through the roof.”

No need to worry. Wallypop has you covered.

Lately, with all the media attention, there’ve been a lot of naysayers talking about the stench. I can honestly say, our wipes don’t stink. They don’t go into a sealed container. They go into a little (lidded) garbage can in the bathroom. Many people use a wet bag … There is no odor.

Sighs of relief all around.

Wallypop explains:

But, really, you might be wondering, how do I use these?

Using cloth wipes for urine-only visits to the bathroom is so simple it’s hardly worth mentioning. Go, wipe, and then toss the wipe into whatever container you prefer.

Using cloth wipes for other toilet visits is not any more difficult, but there is a certain ick factor involved. Consider how much waste you’re willing to leave on your children’s diapers or wipes when you toss them in the pail. Use the same standards for yourself. Shake, scrape, swish, or squirt off anything you don’t want in your laundry, and then toss the wipe into the pail or container. (Personally speaking, we just wipe and toss in the pail. Our wipes have minimal staining.)

Thanks for sharing.

I certainly do not begrudge anyone for filling voids in the marketplace. More power to them. I wish them well.

But it reminds me …

I remember my grandfather would always keep a handkerchief in his back pocket. After using it, he would wad it up and stuff it right back into the same pocket. As a little boy, I remember thinking how disgusting that was.

“Why don’t you use a tissue, grandpa?” I would ask.

“I like to use a handkerchief,” he would say, which would effectively end the discussion.

I’m not sure how regular bathroom tissue is any less “natural” than reusable cloth wipes, seeing as they are both manufactured from materials found here on Earth, but it occurs to me that bad breath, arm pit odor and bad hair are also “natural” phenomena.

Sometimes a touch of “artificiality” (for the want of a better phrase) goes a long way.

I promise … this is not a slam. I know there are wonderful people out there who prefer cloth – and I know there are puppy-kickers and kitten-smackers who like paper.

I just thought you’d find this interesting.

Posted in environmentalism, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , | 12 Comments »


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

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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 5, 2009

From the school of thought that brought us such blockbuster idiocies as “No DDT Means Malaria” and “Blood For Owl: Move It Lumber” comes a new thriller with all the intrigue that only moronic environmentalists can evoke.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the tangy tale of “Pass The Salt – The Puget Sound Chronicles.”

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown at tell the story:

pass the salt

keep that crap away from the water

Snow and ice cause an increase in car crashes. Car tires have little or no traction on these surfaces. We learn these basic facts in Driver’s Ed 101. However, officials in Seattle, Wash. disregard these physics laws concerning automobiles on snow and ice. They have implemented policies which aggravate dangerous road conditions and are leading to an increase in accidents and injuries.

They claim to act out of their concern for the environment. Hmmm. On the one hand, you have human death, bodily injury and suffering, money lost due to vehicular damage and time lost from work and school — versus the environment. What seems like a no-brainer to most Americans, and defies common sense, is the city’s refusal to use salt and other proven means of clearing streets of dangerous snow and ice. “If we were using salt, you’d see patches of bare road because salt is very effective,” said Alex Wiggins of the Seattle Department of Transportation. “We decided not to utilize salt because it’s not a healthy addition to Puget Sound.”

These environmentalist fanatics prefer people lose life and limb rather than damage a blade of grass or an insect. But like much government decision-making they are actually harming the environment more by choosing sand over salt on roads.

Between the environmentalists, the health police and the Democrats (often interchangeable), it’s almost a challenge to find elements of society that are not bass-ackwards anymore.

How long before headlines like this start popping up:


Just wait.

We are about to be bombarded with the dangers of Third Hand Smoke.

(I’m not kidding. See here).

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