Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘global climate change’


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 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.


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 »


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 April 20, 2010

It's his fault!

From the “Huh?” file …

I know I’ve said this before, as have many others, but if the radical environmental movement continues on its current path, the “parody” industry will surely go bankrupt. The unemployment lines will swell disproportionately with the ranks of out-of-work comedy writers, disenfranchised satirists and down-on-their-luck stand-up jokesters. Publications like “The Onion” could go extinct.

For example, there was a time when someone could say “global warming causes global cooling,” and it was considered absurdly funny.

Today, it is accepted as reality by the environmentally hysterical.

Long ago, when the Maharishi of myth, Al Gore, would arrive for a lecture on global warming in sub-zero temperatures, it was hilariously ironic.

Today, it is explained away as a natural consequence of man-made climate change.

Each day, it seems, new paths to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us all come to light.

The latest cause of the planet’s rapid approach to a steady boil is none other than that old planet-killing stand-by, pollution.

But it’s not what you think.

The rub here is not that there is too much pollution, but that there is too little.

Eli Kintisch of the Los Angeles Times says cleaner air could speed up the global warming process:

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

I promise you this is not a leftover post from the 1st of April.

I have not (to the best of my knowledge) had any heavy narcotics slipped into my single-serving fruit cup.

I am not an animal.

Apparently, we never knew how good we had it when we had more of a devil-may-care approach to pollution.

As a child, I gave a hoot and didn’t pollute. Little did I know I was turning up the burner on Mother Earth.

I never realized how much of a bastard I really am.

Damn you, Woodsy Owl!!!

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2010

From the “Keep Kicking Them When They’re Down” file …

How often have you heard someone ask something akin to: “They can land a man on the moon, but how come they can’t figure out how to get the wheels on a shopping cart to work right?”

Or: “Sure, they can send rovers to Mars, but how come no one can figure out how to get a stupid voting machine to punch holes in ballots correctly?”

Everyone has lamented the seemingly archaic state of some technologies while other scientific advances have literally rocketed man into space.


Enter the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – (NASA).

Sure, they are terrific at putting humans on the lunar surface, sending space shuttles into orbit around the Earth to conduct a myriad of critical experiments, placing remote control land rovers on the Martian terrain, and launching probes that travel through the solar system and beyond; but when it comes to keeping track of surface temperatures, not so much.

In what is yet another blow (how many is that now?) to the religion of man-made global warming, it seems that the record keeping at NASA has been a downright mess, making the fiasco of ClimateGate almost pale by comparison.

Blake Snow of Fox News writes:

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

Meanwhile, a world renowned professor, the hysterical (but seemingly pleasant) James Lovelock – famous for putting forth the proposition that the “whole earth is a single organism,” – has announced that it is already too late to save the planet from the ravages of humankind’s existence. The planet, he says, cannot be saved. The best we can do, as the catalysts of the impending destruction, is to simply “enjoy life while (we) can.”

Excellent advice.

From the BBC:

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys … he said that while the earth’s future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger” on global warming as it built its civilizations.

What is more, he predicts, the earth’s climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in “jerks and jumps”, and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

Humanity, driven by its insatiable thirst to selfishly and recklessly improve its quality of life over the course of the millenia at the expense of nature, ravenously raping resources in the process, inflicting irreperable damage to delicate balances of the planet, has permanently crippled fragile Mother Earth.

What have we done?

Damn us all!

And out of sheer curiosity … what exactly would a world not dying from the effects of man-made global warming look like?

Cold in the winter?

Hot in the summer?

Wet in the Spring?

Oh, wait …

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2010

A little global warming rapping at my chamber door.

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming | Tagged: , | 6 Comments »


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 December 30, 2009

I suppose a round of thanks is in order to all of those nasty greenhouse gas emitters across the globe who threw up their middle fingers at Mother Earth over the course of the past several decades. A huge slice of gratitude probably needs to be extended to every fossil-fuel consuming, incandescent light-bulb using, fireplace burning, disposable diaper buying climate-change criminal on the face of the planet. Tax paying enviro-nazis need to stash away their contempt for the climate-killers and globe-destroyers of the world – even if only for a little while – and acknowledge that if not for the rampant, hockey-stick rise in temperatures caused by unchecked, reckless human activity, things could have been a hell of a lot worse.

This year’s pre-Christmas blizzard packed one hell of a punch, dumping beaucoup snow from Oklahoma to New York. In terms of snow removal, the storm has proven to be a very costly one – costlier than most state budgets have allotted for.

Global warming may have saved the day.

Stephanie Simon and Russell Gold from the Wall Street Journal write:

The blizzards that hit the Midwest and the Eastern Seaboard this month rang up huge snow-removal bills for cash-strapped state and local governments — and left officials scrambling to figure out how they will pay to clear roads later in the winter.

Maryland’s State Highway Administration has spent more than $27 million this year on snow removal, the bulk of that clearing away a massive pre-Christmas storm. But the agency’s annual snow-removal budget is just $26 million.

Colorado officials recently notified residents in rural areas that they will let snow sit overnight on 2,800 miles of sparsely traveled state highways to cut down on overtime costs.

Oklahoma, socked by a Christmas Eve blizzard, is also feeling the pinch. Cleveland County, which covers the southern suburbs of Oklahoma City, had to call in 50 employees for three days of holiday overtime to clear a foot of snow. The bill, a bad blow to an already-strained budget, will make it impossible for the county to buy a $100,000 winch truck needed to pull stranded vehicles off the road, said county commissioner Rod Cleveland.

Just think how much worse the blizzard would have been had out-of-control, disaffected, carbon-footprint making global-warming deniers not kept temperatures as high as they did with their iconoclastic, self-absorbed, inconsiderate planet-destroying ways.

And imagine what the cost of snow removal would have been had global temperatures been at their real levels. 

Keep those engines idling, people.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 15, 2009

At the risk of sounding naïve to some, I honestly do think Al Gore believes in the man-made global warming myth that is so associated with him.

I do.

I believe he has thoroughly bought into the poppycock that human beings have the ability to literally alter climatic patterns on the Earth, and that the fate of the planet hangs in the balance. He has so succumbed to the hysteria, there is nothing – including the coming of another Ice Age – that could sway him otherwise. He believes what he believes, no matter what the data truly reveals. Whatever has to be done to relate the urgency of the matter to the rest of the world, he will make sure it gets done. To him, and the other enviro-fascists, the end always justifies the means.

Think about the “ClimateGate” scandal for a moment. Is there anyone who truly thinks that the overlords of man-made global warming – Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al – don’t believe in the impending doom of man-made global warming? Does anyone truly believe they are completely faking their belief in the whole thing? That they are making it up? Or is their conviction so deep – so ingrained – that when data is collected that tends not support their doomsday theories, they harbor no guilt or feel no ethical dilemma whatsoever in making whatever adjustments are necessary to help corroborate what they already accept as fact. That the data may not be temporarily cooperating should never keep a good crisis from going to waste.

As certain as Al Gore is that human beings are destroying the planet, regardless of the reality, he still could use a decent fact-checker or continuity director, or at least someone who is willing to stop him before he makes an ass out of himself.


The former Vice-President, while speaking at Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, informed the audience that Arctic ice could be a thing of the past in as little as five years. The world is warming at such a frightening clip, he warned, that the North Pole could be nothing but water in a half-decade’s time.

Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton of the Times Online write:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr. Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

As one blogger at the Times Online noted: “Antarctica has added nearly two million square miles of ice in the past 30 years. Why is it that Gore never mentions that?”

The fact that Dr. Maslowski publicly embarrassed Gore is one thing. But what immediately struck me about this hyper-gaffe is Gore’s claim that the ice caps will be gone in five to seven years from “ballpark” information he received from Maslowski “several years ago.”

Several years ago?

So, several years ago, the Arctic ice was supposed to be gone in several years?

How many years in a “several”?

Shouldn’t the fact that there is still ice up there “several” years after the fact set off any bells in Gore’s head?

That was a dumb question. Scratch that.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 7, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency has spoken.

The argument must be over, I guess.

It’s now time for America’s enviro-heroes to make everything right.

Perhaps the best place to start is figuring out a way to reliably calculate the number of exhales each human being has during the course of an average day. It won’t be an easy thing to do, of course, especially because the level of physical activity, amount of sleep, and lung capacity will all have a considerable impact on the tally. Mere estimations won’t be sufficient. Something more precise must be effected.

An Obamacratic proclamation of some sort that requires the mandatory monitoring of vital signs of all carbon dioxide emitting human beings ought to do the trick – and it’ll probably cost only ten to twelve trillion dollars over the first three years. (America will actually save money in the long run!)

From there, a comprehensive plan can be formulated to effectively control carbon dioxide disbursement into the atmosphere – perhaps an issuance of exhale credits of some sort whereas an overage of breathing output units (BUOs) could result in fines, and possibly jail time.

With more folks in jail, less babies can be made – which means less people walking around spitting out these poisons. That, in turn, means less CO2 emmissions into the atmosphere.


The solution almost writes itself.

All of those details can be worked out in time, of course – although not alot of time, considering the wellness of the world is hanging in the balance.

Whatever it is, something will have to be done, because earlier today, the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases are endangering the health of human beings. (Surprise, surprise). These emissions, mind you, aren’t simply a matter of concern, or a thing to keep an eye on, or something requiring further study, but something that is literally endangering people.

This is something the EPA has had on its docket for quite a while.

Conveniently, as the myth of man-made global warming unravels – and the joke that is the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen gets the green flag – the EPA has stepped up to set things straight, just in the nick of time, reminding us all that greenhouse gases really are destroying the planet.

From the Associated Press:

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people’s health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.

The finding is timed to boost the administration’s arguments at an international climate conference — beginning this week — that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation.

Under a Supreme Court ruling, the finding of endangerment is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

Note that greenhouse gases must be regulated. Also note that global warming must be contained – an interesting choice of words, suggesting that temperature readings can be herded like alpacas into a confined area … or manipulated like data by global warming alarmists at the UK’s Climate Research Unit.

I wonder if American citizens will eventually be required to have their own warning labels – CO2 output, flatulence (methane) emmissions, etc.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

“This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration’s commitments to address global climate change,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. “The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.”

But there’s no need to agonize.

If Congress doesn’t kill the American economy first with its legislative “cures” for a phantom problem, then the EPA will do so through the Clean Air Act – and Obamacrat accountability will once again go out the window.

Think of all the great news President Obama will now have to share at the Global Fraud Conference in Copenhagen.

Legislation, regulation … what’s the difference?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009

Phil Jones

It’s only temporary. It should not be construed as anything damning or incriminating and should, in no way, affect anyone’s certitude in the fact that the planet still faces unspeakable calamities due to man-made global warming. Those quick to draw conclusions or pass judgment are best advised to back off, relax, grab a cream soda and stop denying the reality of a world heading toward climactic catastrophe. The resignation of Phil Jones, Director of East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, shouldn’t be interpreted as anything other than a provisional measure.

They just need some time to straighten this whole thing out.

Don’t go throwing away your squiggly light bulbs. There’s still all kinds of doom coming.

Don’t worry.

Hell be back.

I’m paraphrasing, of course, but I’m sure that’s what the loyal doomsayers are saying as the fairy-tale of man-made climate change continues to unravel.

In reality, “Climategate” is doing to the global warming farce what global warming was supposed to be doing to the world. Only this time, it is no myth.

The man behind many of the e-mails that have set the global warming fraud on its gluteus maximus is stepping down.

From the Associated Press:

Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.

The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.

An independent review? Now that is about the funniest thing I’ve read today. What would Mr. Jones know about independent reviews?

To top it off, it looks like Penn State is going to launch its own investigation into the scandal.

From US News and World Report Online:

Among other things, the Watergate scandal of the 1970s gave us a great naming convention for future scandals. Take “Climategate” at Penn State. That’s what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers’ falsification of data. One Penn State professor is involved in the scandal.

The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university’s climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to “delete certain E-mails.”

Quite literally, a few hours ago, I received a mass mailer from parts unknown with the subject line: “Proof That Global Warming Is Real.” Despite my initial thinking, it didn’t take long to realize that it was not sent as a joke. It wasn’t meant to be one of those “pass it on for a good laugh” e-mails we all get. It was an emotional plea for environmentally-conscious citizens to not lose focus. It was meant to tug at the heartstrings, to clarify for readers that the threat to the planet is still very real, despite the distractions of “climategate.”

It featured a picture of an adorable baby polar bear with the caption, “Will you take him in when he’s evicted from his home?”

Of course, the picture was of a baby polar bear already in someone’s home. I assumed as much seeing as wicker baskets generally don’t grow in the wild north of Alberta.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009

From both the “Living In A Parallel Universe” file and the “Clueless At The UN” file …

For years, the fact that there even existed an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made me wonder if the existence of other such panels – like the Transnational Water-Is-Wet Agency and the World Sex-Feels-Good Council – were just around the corner. That the United Nations felt an urgency to create an intergovernmental body of scientists whose purpose was to confirm that climate actually does change always seemed a bit milky-in-the-filbert to me. Their purpose, so they said, was to assess the risk of global climate change due to the activity of humans.

It sounded so menacing, but it was nothing new.

I’d been hearing that the earth was tangoing with grim death due to one thing or another since I was a little boy – and that every threat to delicate existence could always be pinned on the actions of self-absorbed, gluttonous excesses of humanity.

By the time the IPCC came along, one couldn’t help but feel guilty about being alive.

By my thirtieth birthday, the end of the planet must have come and gone at least twelve times, maybe more.

When the IPCC – an organization that doesn’t do its own research, incidentally – won the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of years ago (along with Al Gore), I knew that either this whole “global warming” thing was a grand hoax of the highest order or someone had slipped a psychotropic drug into my Yoo Hoo. It was so fantastically surreal listening to hysterical apocalyptic climate jockeys predict certain doom when common sense prescribed that even if all of humanity decided tomorrow to make the earth warmer, it simply couldn’t be done.

But agendas are powerful little bastards, persistent and merciless. Like illegals that gather in front of the Home Depot, or the sound of Barack Obama’s voice, they don’t just go away – even when the evidence points to the contrary.

Rajendra Pachauri is the Chairman of the IPCC. Despite the recent “climategate” revelations of manipulated data, conspiratorial suppression of opposing opinion, and the blackballing of dissenters, Pachauri displays what can either be called colossal ignorance or steadfast leftism.

According to him, on the level playing fields of modern science, such bias cannot exist.

James Randerson at the UK Guardian writes:

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

It just isn’t possible, he says.

It’s all so very transparent, he explains.

Well, if it is, you can thank hackers for that.

Despite Mr. Pachauri’s claims, the fact remains that the global warming all-stars – like Phil Jones and Michael Mann – were doing what they could to exclude dissenting papers from being peer reviewed in scientific journals.

That’s kind of an important point.

Therefore, how could peer reviewed papers disagreeing with Climate Research Unit (CRU) conclusions be considered when none were offered in the first place thanks to the likes of Jones and Mann?

No one – not even a chairman of one of those feckless UN commissions – can possibly be that ignorant.

Can they?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


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.


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009

On the periphery of reality, where the myth of global warming has set up shop, there is a great deal of disappointment being directed at President Barack Obama, particularly from his fan base overseas. While banners across the globe implore Barack Obama to somehow “Stop Climate Change” – presumably so there can finally be one constant, unvarying temperature for all of humanity – the President is discovering that “hope and change,” while sufficient to move a whole lot of street vendor paraphernalia, amounts to nothing more than empty buzzwords poised to disillusion those fated to reside in the real world.

While it certainly would have been advantageous – both symbolically and environmentally – for the President to walk across the ocean to get to Asia, there’s a growing sense among the ecologically hysterical (i.e., the left) that the “hope and change” President is sizing up to be a big fat failure.

He just can’t seem to make anyone happy these days.

Germany’s Speigel Online has an opinion piece by Christian Schwägerl called “Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change“.

Nice title.

He writes:

US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.

The folder labeled “climate change” that George W. Bush left behind for his successor on the desk of the Oval Office in January likely wasn’t a thick one. Although Bush once said that America is overly dependent on oil, he never got beyond that insight. He was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity. “Forget the climate” seems to have been Bush’s unofficial motto.

Leftist pundits are innately entertaining beings. I enjoy them the same way I enjoy watching those guys who can simultaneously spin fifteen plates on the end of broom handles. They’re admittedly enticing for a few moments, but before too long, I need to get up and get a sandwich.

Mr. Schwägerl, you’ll note, was quick to point out that former President Bush all but ignored the “real threat facing humanity” during his time in office – global warming – and instead busied himself with war mongering and making totalitarians feel bad about themselves. Bush, obviously, never saw his dream of a world without ice caps come to fruition, thanks to a global cooling trend set off by global warming, but Lord knows he tried valiantly to destroy as much as he could.

The “folder” thing was a clever touch, too. (Leftists are inventive, aren’t they?)

When [Obama] took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US — that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.

On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing — and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.

Hold me.

Barack Obama cast himself as a “citizen of the world” when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely, his country’s addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health-care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example, by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.

If, indeed, President Obama has “failed the world on climate change,” then I wholeheartedly applaud his grievous ineffectiveness.

The best thing Barack Obama can do for this country is to fail at implementing his initiatives.

Note how, according to Schwägerl speaking on behalf of the disenchanted international community, global climate change should be the “single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen.”

As talk show host Dennis Prager likes to say, “Clarity is my friend.”

Maybe President Obama ought to bike to Oslo next month to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. The gesture would, at least, show his commitment to the cause.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, environmentalism, Foreign Policy, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a 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 24, 2009


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 »


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 21, 2009

One of the favorite stops on my daily trek through cyberspace is the great Vocal Minority blog. Besides being informative, it is always enjoyable and peppered with passion. Indeed, Eric is someone who knows how to fight the good fight.

One of the tag lines used regularly at Vocal Minority is “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

It isn’t just a funny throw-away line.

It isn’t just another way of saying, “See? I told you so.”

It is the reality of a Leftist freight train bearing down at full speed on the institutions and values that have defined America for over two centuries … and America is sitting on the tracks.

A couple of nights ago, on Mark Levin’s radio program, he played an audio clip of Great Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton who was addressing the Minnesota Free Market Institute at Bethel University in St. Paul last week. In his remarkable speech, Lord Monckton warned, in no uncertain terms, of the dangers that face the United States should President Barack Obama sign the proposed Global Climate Change Treaty being negotiated in Copenhagen. 

It was an important recitation – an admonition of the highest order that must be taken seriously.

Please take the time to read the transcript (or watch the video clip).

At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it (because they think they’re going to get money out of it). Most of the left-wing regimes of the world and the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I have read that treaty. And what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘a climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t, and we’ve been screwing up the climate. (We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line). And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the two-hundred pages of that treaty?

Quite right. It doesn’t appear once.

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year because they’d captured it – Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies for that point of view, he’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Laureate. Of course, he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this … If that treaty is signed, (that) constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can’t reign from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back again. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, economically speaking, there’s nothing we can do about it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate

Eric at Vocal Minority writes:

Monckton, a one-time science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, knows that this climate bill is the end of American prosperity and exceptionalism. Funny we need a foreigner to point this out to us.

Funny, indeed.

One of the arguments I’ve read against Lord Monckton’s assessment (in an attempt to discredit his entire position) is his “misunderstanding” of how the treaty process in the United States works. Because a treaty is only a treaty with two-thirds advice and consent from the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, US Constitution), anything the President signs in Copenhagen would (presumably) be “binding” in the same way the North American Free Trade Agreement is – that is, a congressional-executive agreement requiring a simple majority Congressional vote with a provision to withdraw if certain conditions are met.

Technically speaking, the criticism is correct.

But relying on the “constitutional limitations” argument is both naive and dangerous, particularly because even the most rudimentary review of this nation’s history reveals scores of examples of those limitations being violated or abused. (Franklin D. Roosevelt anyone?)

How, for example, does Social Security exist if the Constitution is as unassailable as Monckton’s detractors claim? How is it that Medicare and Medicaid exist if the constitution’s limitations are as impregnable as some would believe? Explain how campaign finance reform, as spelled out in McCain-Feingold, can exist when there is a First Amendment?  What specifically in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to seize the health care industry? And don’t get me started on the constitutionally unaccountable “czars” that litter the federal government like so many autumn leaves on the driveway.

These are, of course, the same people who speak of a “living, beathing” constitution.

Suddenly, conveniently, its limitations are relevant.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | 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 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 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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 22, 2009

Just a tasty little tidbit to add to the overwhelming, debate-ending “global warming” consensus stew … 

For those of you who know the name Rutherford B. Hayes, you are probably aware that he served as President of the United States in the late 1870s. It was four-and-a-half months into his term – exactly 132 years ago yesterday – that temperatures in the great city of Nashville, Tennessee dipped to 60 degrees.

In July!

It was record that stood … until yesterday.

From WHNT, 19 in Huntsville:

NWS forecaster Bobby Boyd noted it was the third consecutive morning when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low temperature record.

Temperatures were cool, but did not break records at several Tennessee cities.

Knoxville dropped to 59 degrees Tuesday morning, Chattanooga had 60 degrees, Tri-Cities recorded 58 degrees and Memphis was 69 degrees.

Non sequitor that it is, there’s still something devilishly satisfying in knowing that even the home state of Al Gore isn’t cooperating.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 30, 2009

Paul Krugman - the anti-traitor

Paul Krugman - the anti-traitor

For those who may have suspected as much – particularly my friends on the left who regularly send me heartfelt e-mails and love notes – I must now confess to something that I have held in hard denial for the duration of my conservative life. The time has come – finally – to throw off the shackles of refutation that have crippled me intellectually and allow some much needed illumination to cut through my self-imposed narrow-mindedness, i.e. conservatism.

With the help of master leftist and hysterically agenda-driven economist (and columnist) Paul Krugman, I can now admit, without reservation, that I possess a treasonous streak.

That’s right, a treasonous streak.

Indeed, I am a traitor to my country – and yes, my planet.

There, I said it.

I am an honest-to-goodness turncoat to Mother Earth – and thanks to Krugman, I am now able to own up to it.

In his New York Times column yesterday, he set the record straight, writing about those who dared to vote against the so-called global warming “Cap-and-Trade” bill in the House – and by extention, all of us who have denied the man-made global warming threat:

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Wow, unforgivable.

Gone are the quaint old days when dissent was deemed patriotic. Washed away into the scrap heap of history are the days when opposing the party in charge was considered a healthy thing.

Welcome to the splendor of the Obamacratic Age, where striding out of lockstep with those in power – those whose goal it is to fundamentally transform the United States into the United Statists – is now considered betrayal.

Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman put the cherry on the cake for me – helping me to come to terms with my treasonous ways – by saying the following about Republicans, global warming deniers and other haters:

“They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming.”

It’s absolutely true.

How did they know?

I not only strived for a world where life itself would be threatened on such a grand scale, but I thought it’d be fun to play a little politics on the way to our destruction.

Man, these guys are good.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2009


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 5, 2009



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?





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?




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?




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.


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 »


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 …


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?


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 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?


You know the answer.

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


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 »