Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2010
On the inside of the gatefold of the Beatles American LP “Songs, Pictures And Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles,” the narrative of the band’s young 21-year old bassist, Paul McCartney, starts this way:
Paul is sometimes called the “Nut Beatle” or “Beatle Nut” because he is the zaniest of the group.
Whether that was actually true or not is a matter for Beatleologists.
What is for certain, forty-six years later, is that the “Nut Beatle” isn’t zany at all. Rather, the ever-wrinkling “cute one” is a bona fide “shut up and sing” archaic hippie moron with a disgusting and warped sense of values. He is not only reaffirming to the world that even the greatest of musical geniuses can have the emptiest of heads, he is further showing himself to be an insensitive mental oaf in his (almost) old age. That he also worships the most incompetent American President since James Earl Carter only emphasizes his oblivion.
The crotchety old songsmith from Liverpool – who once wrote a song called “Freedom” in response to the 9/11 attacks (a song that was harshly ridiculed by left and has all but been banished from the face of the earth since then) – has already disgraced himself in recent weeks by insulting a former American President on American soil while receiving an award from the American government.
Well the “Beatle Nut” has brilliantly advanced his own cause toward immortalized irrepressible idiocy by comparing those who don’t buy into the global warming myth to those who deny the Holocaust.
Yes, the fool on the hill is saying that to deny the unproven, unsubstantiated, ever-crumbling claims that the world is in danger from rising temperatures due to human activity is akin to denying the most well-documented atrocity in human history.
To this day, there is not a stitch of proof – only agenda-driven theory, scattered supposition, wishful leftist thinking and fear-mongering – that human beings are not only causing the planet’s temperature to rise, but that we are putting the planet in danger by doing so. Yet, proof of the Holocaust exists in abundance. To deny it would be like denying the existence of the sun.
From Fox News:
Sir Paul McCartney just can’t let it be.
The former Beatle predicted in an interview that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico might expedite a move to cleaner, renewable energy sources in the world.
Sir Paul could have stopped while he was ahead, but McCartney went on to compare people who don’t believe in global warming to “those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”
“Sadly we need disasters like this to show people,” McCartney said in an exclusive interview with The Sun. “Some people don’t believe in climate warning — like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”
McCartney continued, “But the facts indicate that there’s something going on and we’ve got to be aware of it if we want our kids to inherit a decent world, not a complete nightmare of a planet — clean, renewable energy is for starters.”
Sir Paul is obviously among the many deep thinking hysterics on the left who believe that temperatures are naturally static, with little fluctuation. I would ask him: What temperature should it be right now, Sir Paul? And how would he explain the melting of all the Ice Age ice thousands of years before the advent of the Hummer?
To begin with, the planet is not in a warming cycle.
Even Phil Jones – the Maharishi of the man-made global warming hoax – admitted that during the last fifteen years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
As I wrote in February:
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’s all nonsense
But even if there was some sort of warming trend, so what?
Temperatures fluctuate all the time. There have been plenty of warming periods in this planet’s history as well as plenty of cooling trends. It is the height of arrogance – and ignorance – to think that human beings can have such a major impact on global temperatures. If we so desired – if the very existence of humanity depended on it – no matter how we might try, we do not have the ability to raise the earth’s temperature in any significant way.
But the bigger issue here is equating the denial of something that is, at best, scientifically questionable – a left-wing movement riddled with scandal, manipulation and outright deceit – with the denial of something as provable (and abhorrent) as the Holocaust.
To deny the greatest documented evil of all – the Holocaust – is itself evil.
Thus, to equate the denial of man-made global warming to Holocaust denial is to say that disagreeing with the likes of Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr. and Paul McCartney is evil.
It not only trivializes Holocaust denial, it is the ultimate insult to those whose lives were impacted by the Holocaust.
It is shameless.
Not that anyone is paying much attention, mind you.
Rest assured, however, had McCartney compared the denial of God to denial of the Holocaust, he certainly would have gotten play in the lamestream media.
McCartney without a guitar or piano is much like Barack Obama without a teleprompter.
Incidentally, the lyrics to the now extinct song Freedom are:
This is my right
A right given by God
To live a free life
To live in freedom
Talkin’ about freedom
I’m talkin’ ’bout freedom
I will fight
For the right
To live in freedom
The left hated that song.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Music, Pop Culture | Tagged: climate change, Global Warming, global warming denial, Holocaust denial, Paul McCartney | Leave a Comment »
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!”
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?
Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, Earth Day, environmentalism, global climate change, Global Warming, Green | 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).
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.
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.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, man made global warming | 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.
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!
Posted in American culture, environmentalism, Global Warming, humor, Liberalism, Science, Silly Stuff | Tagged: Earth Day 2009, Earth Day 2010, environmentalism, global climate change, Global Warming | 6 Comments »
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.”
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 …
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: bad data, Climategate, global climate change, Global Warming, hoax, man-made, Manmade global warming, myth, NASA | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010
Oh yeah …
And the Alaskan Glaciers aren’t melting quite as much as originally thought either – which means sea levels aren’t rising as quickly as advertised.
So, instead of melting Alaskan ice contributing .0067 inches more water a year to world sea levels – which is a highly questionable calculation anyway – it turns out it is only contributing .0047 inches a year. That means it would take two centuries for world sea levels to rise nearly – but not quite – one whole inch.
Still, don’t be surprised if cities like New York, Miama and Los Angeles – coastal metroplexes – become barren wastelands over the next several milenia.
Perhaps people ought to think about packing up shop now, while traffic is still good, and head for higher ground.
From Science Daily:
The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says not so fast.
Previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40-plus years, according to Erik Schiefer, a Northern Arizona University geographer who coauthored a paper in the February issue of Nature Geoscience that recalculates glacier melt in Alaska.
The research team, led by Étienne Berthier of the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography at the Université de Toulouse in France, says that glacier melt in Alaska between 1962 and 2006 contributed about one-third less to sea-level rise than previously estimated.
Incidentally, the forecast for Fairbanks, Alaska calls for temperaures to be below freezing for the next several days – including a high temperature of 9 degrees on Saturday.
I hate when Alaskan ice melts in subfreezing temperatures.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Alaskan ice melting, climate changing, environmentalism, Global Warming, global warming fraud, global warming hoax, melting Alaskan glaciers, rising sea levels | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010
I know that the study of climate is a tricky science. I am also aware that, often times, things aren’t quite as they seem.
We now know, for instance, that global warming triggers global cooling that induces global moderation that leads to all-encompassing global climate change.
And even though nothing may actually be changing, things change all the time, even when they don’t. And even though it may not necessarily be a global thing, it is taking place all over the world, even if it’s not.
This isn’t your father’s weather.
Last week, for example, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that the last ten years have been the hottest decade since temperature records have been kept, although Professor Phil Jones – the former chief of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit who was forced to step down due to the ClimateGate scandal – finally admitted there has been no global warming in 15 years.
Last week, Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said that the three month span from November 2009-January 2010 has been “the hottest November-January the world has seen.”
Yet, in Great Britain, it has been the coldest winter in three decades.
Adam Gabbatt from the Guardian.UK writes:
After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction.
Provisional figures from the forecaster show the UK winter – which in forecasting terms lasts from the start of December until the end of February – has been the harshest, in temperature terms, since 1978-79.
According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature – calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 – of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C.
So much nuance.
I’m out of my league.
Speaking of Professor Phil Jones … he testified on Monday before the British Parliament’s committee on Science and Technology in an attempt to defend himself after the ClimateGate scandal threw the entire manmade global warming farce into a tailspin. Indeed, he admitted to withholding data about global temperatures, but said that it wasn’t standard practice to share that kind of information with other scientists, nor was it common to release computer models so that the “science” could be checked.
Jones said, “I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way.”
That’s all I can say.
Is he serious?
True, I’m no scientist, but the layman in me can’t help but wonder … what exactly is the “peer review” process if it isn’t allowing fellow scientists to review and challenge research? What is it that peers are supposed to be reviewing if not the methods and data used to arrive at given conclusions? Isn’t that, quite literally, what science is supposed to be all about? Isn’t that what the scientific method is?
Before conclusions can become accepted in the scientific community – let alone “settled science” – other scientists must be allowed to conduct their own research using the data and methods employed by those who have drawn the original conclusions.
Am I wrong?
What am I missing here?
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, Climategate, coldest winter in Engladn, coldest winter in UK in 31 years, Global Warming, Phil Jones, settled science | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2010
(blog entry joined in progress)
… and even though the Maharishi of Manmade Global Warming and Climate Change, Professor Phil Jones, recently admitted that there has been no global warming taking place on earth over the past fifteen years – as well as conceding that there is no consensus on the matter in the scientific community – the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the ten year period from 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.
The WMO, of course, is an agency of the United Nations – an organization whose worth is rivaled only by boar nipples and Joy Behar’s television program.
Keep in mind, another UN body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has already shown that their inscrutable methods of data collection – which include anecdotal tidbits from magazine articles, propaganda literature from environmental pressure groups, and manipulated temperature reading – are not exactly the most scientific.
Did you also know that last month was the hottest January “the world has ever seen.”
Donna Bowater from Express.co.uk writes:
The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.
“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran ¬climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”
It may be hard to believe initially, but why should it? Why should any reasonable thinking human not believe that last month was the hottest January mankind has ever seen?
Considering that all we’ve seen from the enviro-fascists over the years – and even more so since last year’s ClimateGate scandal blew the roof off of the hoax – is manipulation, ommision and deception, why would anyone ever doubt it?
We’ve seen Godless religion. We’ve seen mounting hysteria. We’ve seen the onset of green totalitarianism.
What would lead anyone to think that January wasn’t a cauldron of human activity-driven destruction?
Was it all the snow?
The record-breaking cold temperatures?
The untold amounts of greenhouse gases dancing around the atmosphere from all the limos and planes in Copenhagen during the Climate Change Summit?
Seeing as human activity is supposed to be having such a profound effect on the climate, I can’t help but wonder if we might be deep in the heart of another Ice Age right now if not for our idling pickup trucks and incandescent light bulbs.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming | Tagged: climate change, Global Warming, hottest January on record, IPCC, WMO, World Meteorological Organization | Leave a 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: global climate change, Global Warming | 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.
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.
Posted in Al Gore, global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Climategate, enviro-fascist, environmentalism, environmentalist wackos, global climate change, Global Warming | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 16, 2010
Professor Phil Jones
It’s only the latest kerplunk in a bucket filled with what is already the foulest-smelling lie one could dream up – a collection of untruths that should have long ago put an end to the biggest sham of the last half century, if not longer.
This matters … or it should matter.
That is, it should matter to the American mainstream media, because by any objective standard, this is big news. In fact, the entire arc of this continually unfolding and unraveling lie is tremendously big news.
They seem to understand that in Great Britain.
Their media is all over this.
It’s a big story because this preposterous hoax has infiltrated, poisoned and redefined all conventional wisdom on the matter to the point that to deny it is to deny the Holocaust. It’s a big story because of the unprecedented, industry-crippling, economy-altering changes being proposed to combat it in almost every industrialized country of the world.
It’s a war that needs not be fought because the enemy doesn’t exist.
It’s a fairy tale.
It is the Granddaddy of all flimflams … and it just keeps getting better.
Unfortunately – and predictably – the New York Times, Washington Post and alphabet channels all but ignored the original “ClimateGate” scandal when it broke late last year. It was as damaging as anything could have been to the pseudo-scientific, agenda-driven, enviro-fascist movement that has continued to claim that human beings are ruining the globe by their very existence.
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?
Mark Landsbaum from the Orange County Register – not 60 Minutes – has a devastatingly comprehensive article enumerating the most outstanding of these global warming frauds – a sensational list of the various climate change “-gates“:
ClimateGate, ChinaGate, HimalayaGate, SternGate, PeerReviewGate, RissiaGate, IceGate, and many others.
As he points out: The Himalayan glaciers will not be gone in twenty-five years, as claimed by the doomsdayers. The Amazon rainforests will not be wiped out due to global warming, as professed by the enviro-nutbags. The exclusion of data from cold climate weather stations in Russia has resulted in nearly a half-degree’s shift upward in average temperatures. The fact that nearly 4,500 surface-temperature weather stations in the United States were taken offline between 1970 and 1990 – most of which existed in colder regions – has also skewed averages upward.
There’s much more.
Jonathan Petre from the UK Mail Online writes:
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
If anything bears repeating, it’s this.
The Maharishi of the manmade global warming farce – the man at the epicenter of the ClimateGate scandal – the high-lord and master of the climate-change lie, Professor Phil Jones, has admitted that for the last decade-and-a-half there has been no global warming.
He has conceded that the medieval world – free of fossil-fuel burning SUVs, disposable diapers, CFCs, fireplaces and big screen televisions – may have actually been warmer than it is today.
He doesn’t say …
I may be going out on a limb here – a please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – but the end of the Ice Age would suggest, to even a layperson as myself, that there had to be some kind of pre-Industrial Revolution warming taking place without the benefit of jet planes and coal burning. After all, that was a lot of ice.
Still, I don’t exactly see a problem for Professor Jones. True, much of the data used to formulate the global warming fraud has been lost, but he’s a clever man.
He can always make up some more.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: climate change, Climategate, enviro-fascist, Global Warming, hoax, Manmade global warming, myth of global warming, Phil Jones | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 10, 2010
It’s the running gag across the conservative blogosphere, talk radio, and those who revel in common sense – and deservedly so.
“Two more feet of global warming fell on Washington today.”
“Man, I hurt my back shoveling all that global warming off my drive way.”
“Schools were cancelled today because of record global warming.”
This entire enviro-fascist delusion is akin to this exchange:
PERSON ONE: Can you please watch your language? Is it possible for you to carry on a conversation without having to swear?
PERSON TWO: What? What the f— are you talking about? I don’t f—ing swear.
Its absurdity is so blatant, so obvious, so demonstrably moronic, that its advocates will be compared to the World War II-era Japanese soldiers who lived hidden away in the hills for so long, they believed the war was still going on years after it ended. The difference, of course, is that global warming zealots are dopes. Without a stitch of evidence to support their doomsday scenarios, without a scintilla of data to back up their woebegone prognostications, and without regard for those pesky facts that keep getting in the way, they fight a fight that does not need fighting. They wage war when there is no conflict. They rally against bogeymen that aren’t there. They attack invisible monsters and claim those monsters are really everywhere.
It’s like listening to six year olds justify sleeping with the light on because of the evil monkey in the closet.
Everything can be blamed on “global warming” – even though there is no warming.
And yes, sadly, the line that was once the gold standard of parody is now being used by the wacko left as a genuine point of argument: “Global warming causes global cooling.”
It’s hard to write comedy anymore when the Left is on the loose.
As I have asked repeatedly on this blog: If temperatures are not going up across the globe, what better indication is there that global warming is not taking place? If record snowfalls and colder temperatures are not signs that global warming is not taking place, then what is? What should the correct temperature be right now? What should the proper, non-global-warming weather be right now? Theoretically, what would have to be happening right now to prove to an enviro-fascist that there is no man-made global warming going on?
With unheard amounts of snowfall slamming the mid-Atlantic in recent days, and with blizzard conditions expected in New York City later today, the winter time months are somehow miraculously, inexplicably,managing to bring wintertime weather.
But to the hysterical who hold on to their ideological security blankets and stuffed teddies like grim death, natural occurrences and cycles that have been taking place on this planet for millions and millions of years are now tell-tale signs that man-made global warming is bringing the planet to its doom.
On Joy Behar’s television program, all twelve viewers were treated to an exchange between Behar and creator of the Vagina Monologues, Eve Ensler, on the subject of Sarah Palin and global warming.
Jeff Poor of NewsBusters transcribed a portion of their discussion:
ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that (Sarah Palin) doesn’t believe in global warming is bizarre.
BEHAR: Every scientist of any note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in it.
ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.
ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.
BEHAR: It’s unbelievable. It does seem insane and the fact that she has not negated the possibility of running in 2012.
ENSLER: But we have. We have negated the possibility of her winning.
As Poor points out: “According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), earthquakes are a phenomenon of ‘sudden rolling or shaking events caused by movement under the Earth’s surface,’ not the earth’s atmosphere which concerns the theory of anthropogenic global warming.”
Stick to vaginas, lady.
Of course, the notion that “every scientist of any note” believes in the global warming myth is abjectly untrue. I don’t know that there is a statement in all of humanity that is more blazenly wrong.
Some scientists of note who don’t buy into the global warming doomsday lie are:
–Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
–Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre.
–George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
–Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
–Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
–Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
–Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.
–William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.
–William Happer, physicist Princeton University.
–David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.
–William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.
–Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg.
–Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia.
–Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Ms. Behar, all of these people are distinguished scientists of note (to say the least) … and there are thousands and thousands more who, too, do not buy into the Al Gore fairy tale.
The list continues to grow.
Granted, none of them are Ed Begley, Jr. but they’ll suffice.
Besides, I would ask the Vagina Gal, if warming has an effect on earthquakes, how is it that there is anything still standing in Pheonix, Arizona?
Incidentally, if there’s anything I want to hear less than Joy Behar saying the word “vagina,” I can’t think of it right now.
H/T to Weasel Zippers
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, earthquakes, Eve Ensler, Global Warming, global warming hoax, Joy Behar, tsunamis | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2010
All of that “hockey stick” talk turned out to be a load of balderdash, but it hasn’t been enough. The inability of scientists to explain why the world isn’t warming anymore doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that not a single computer model managed to predict the current cooling patterns hasn’t seemed to curb anyone’s hysteria. The reality that global temperatures are trending down is explained away as being “part of the larger climate change problem.” The fact that no one can seem to tell us what the correct temperature should be hasn’t stopped the climate fascists from pushing their agenda. The idea that the world’s leading authorities on global warming were caught in a disgraceful data manipulation scandal has not kept the zealots at bay.
To be clear, the polar bear population is not decreasing, the Arctic will not lose all of its ice inside of five years, coastal cities are not in danger of being submerged beneath ice-cap melting floods, and using multiple squares of toilet paper will not make Sheryl Crowe’s music sound any better.
But it doesn’t matter.
The science is settled. We’re just waiting on the data to catch up.
A couple of weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to retract a claim that “climate change” would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. The “warning” was not based on peer-reviewed science, mind you, but on anecdotal observations from a magazine.
The fact is, even with climatic conditions at their ice-melting worst, it would likely take hundreds of years for all of that ice to turn to water.
But wait, it gets better.
This time, the anecdotally-based “science” concerns the Amazon rain forests.
Jonathan Leake at the Times Online writes:
A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.
So, they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another …
The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.
In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.
The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.
And where, pray tell, is the media on this one? Where are all the young, fraud-hungry Woodward and Bernsteins out there? How is it that this little masterpiece isn’t making the rounds?
And when will we finally be able to say goodbye to those God-forsaken squiggly light bulbs?
And can I get a great big “hip-hip-hooray” for those engine idling, incandescent bulb burning, over flatulating, anti-environment types?
It’s damn cold here in New York.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: "conservative blog", Amazon rain forest, bogus report, environmentalism, global cooling, Global Warming, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, WWF | 1 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.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: blizzard 2009, global climate change, Global Warming, snow removal | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009
It wasn’t exactly an appearance by the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but CBS’s Harry Smith probably needed to put a towel down, or have an extra change of clothes handy. Not unlike a Frankie-crazed bobbysoxer at the Paramount, or a poodle-skirted Elvis devotee, he was mesmerized, caught in the spell of the hypnotic cadence of Al Gore’s exquisitely haunting lyrics (or is that hauntingly exquisite?).
True, Smith didn’t scream like a teenaged girl; rather, he seemed almost too anesthetized by Gore’s animal charisma to much more than sigh. It isn’t often that a bona fide journalist (for the want of a better word) has the opportunity to allow himself to succumb to the lilting liquidity of free-verse poetry by a former Vice-President on the air. It was reminiscent of two teenagers sitting at a Denny’s late on a Saturday night – the guy is sitting there, brooding, moody, painfully artistic, reading his poems (or song lyrics) to the girl, who is sitting transfixed, heart fluttering, occassionally finding the composure to mutter an awe-inspired “wow,” thinking how amzingly cute and deep he is.
Such was the case on CBS’s Early Show yesterday when Al Gore sat down with the enchanted Harry Smith and read one of his poems.
Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters writes:
…The 23-year CBS veteran journalist, almost like a teenybopper swooning as she approaches a rock star for an autograph, actually asked the former Vice President to read it to him.
When the Global Warmingist-in-Chief was done, Smith said breathlessly, “Wow. I’m so glad you read that…I’m happy to hear it in your voice.”
Readers are advised that Gore is WAY too busy to discuss climate change with John Stossel, and is WAY too busy to answer questions about ClimateGate.
However, he’s NEVER too busy to read poetry to journalists.
When there are no more arguments to make because the theory of a man-made global warming doomsday has been shot full of holes; when your credibility has disintegrated faster than President Obama’s approval ratings; when you are a laughing stock (even among the scientific community); when the sound most associated with you is that of scornful laughter; when almost no one (outside of the hysterical) wants to hear what you have to say anymore, what can you do?
Go on a TV show and read a poem about how you feel about global warming.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Al Gore, CBS Morning Show, climate change, Global Warming, Harry Smith, poem | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 15, 2009
The little things in life make it all worthwhile. I find enormous pleasure in things that many would classify as unglamorous, unsophisticated, even banal: sitting on the couch with my wife, doing a jigsaw puzzle, stealing a few precious moments with my ever-active daughters, reading, taking in a Honeymooners marathon, Yodels and Yoo Hoo, so on. I concede that I also get tremendous satisfaction out of seeing the absurdities of life exposed for what they are – particularly when those absurdities have the potential to lead to genuinely destructive actions – like the fraud of a world in danger due to man-made global warming.
As the Climate Change Summit continues in Copenhagen – and the crisis of a globe burning up with fever continue to be championed by the terminally hysterical in attendance – there is something sweetly satisfying and deliciously ironic about seeing a group of journalists standing outside for hours, waiting to get into what is effectively a global warming conference, braving the cold in near-freezing temperatures. It’s fantastically funny to me, not unlike having a line of fat people waiting for free government cheese, or listening to two people screaming over eachother complaining how the other one never listens.
Noel Sheppard at News Busters writes:
A group of journalists stood for many hours in near-freezing temperatures Monday waiting to get into the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Marvelously among them was Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein who regularly reports on the dire consequences of — wait for it! — global warming. Ironically, his articles are so filled with inflammatory hyperbole concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite bogeyman that scientists have denounced him.
But before we get there, the Climate Pool reported at Facebook Monday (h/t Tom Nelson):
With U.N. security letting in only those cleared last week, hundreds of accredited delegates, journalists and NGO representatives were left to stand for hours in near-freezing temperatures before being let through. “It was crazy,” AP’s Seth Borenstein said. “You couldn’t leave the line. You couldn’t go to the bathroom, you couldn’t eat. Then snowflakes started falling. One woman even said, ‘if lightning strikes me, would they take me out of line?'”
Sheppard goes on to say, “As a humorous aside, what Seth [Borenstein] and his fellow journalists could really have used Monday was a little global warming.”
The irony continues tomorrow, incidentally, as Mother Nature herself will be heard from.
Heavy snowfall is predicted for Copenhagen at the Global Warming Conference.
It’s the little things.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science, Uncategorized | Tagged: climate change, climate change fraud, Copenhagen, Global Warming, global warming hoax, irony, snow in Copenhagen | 1 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 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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Al Gore, Copenhagen, gaffe, global climate change, Global Warming, Wieslav Maslowski | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 9, 2009
In case there was any doubt, denial is alive and well on New York’s east side. It’s where moral cowardice meets intellectual dishonesty. It’s the home of inefficacious propositions, ethically bereft resolutions and unenforceable policies. It’s the home of dashed promises, countless translators and Khrushchev’s shoe.
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you delusion.
I give you the United Nations.
Despite the fact that the world is not getting warmer, the world is still getting warmer … and even though it’s not, it is.
And despite the lack of evidence that carbon dioxide has anything to do with temperature shifts upward, and despite the fact that data has been manipulated to create the desired results, and despite the fact that the overlords of man-made global warming science have purposely excluded dissenting opinion from being peer reviewed, an despite the fact that if mankind had to make the world warmer for the sake of its own survival it could not, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, is undeterred.
Man is still to blame.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that emails leaked from a British university have done nothing to undermine the United Nations’ view that climate change is accelerating due to humans.
“Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear — that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause,” he said.
Well, that settles it then.
Ban Ki-moon says that humans are the primary cause of climate change – more so than the sun – so it must be true.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, United Nations | Tagged: Ban Ki-moon, climate change, Global Warming, United Nations | 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?
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, global climate change, Global Warming, greenhouse gases | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 3, 2009
Please raise your hand if you are at all surprised at the big three network’s complete and utter dismissal of the “Climategate” fiasco. (I suspect that if it were possible for me to see all of you, there wouldn’t be a single elevated arm in the room). While Senator Barbara Boxer urges the public to focus on the real evil of Climategate – namely, the “conspiracy” involving criminal hackers who breeched the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit computers – the alphabet wing of the “drive-by” media (as Rush Limbaugh calls them) won’t even get in the car on this story, let alone drive by.
In short, ABC, CBS and NBC are not just short-changing the American public on the ever-unfolding scandal, they are ignoring it completely. While White House gatecrashers snag every headline across the map, the unraveling of arguably the greatest science scandal of all time has warranted nothing. While the extramarital affairs of golf’s greatest hero saturate the morning and evening news programs, there hasn’t been as much as a polar bear’s burp worth of time devoted to the crumbling of the man-made climate change castle.
As I wrote last week in my article, “Mainstream Media: What Global Warming Hoax?“:
Indeed, this is a story that ought to be plastered across every front page of the world. This charade, which has been called the greatest threat facing humanity and has been inculcated into every orifice of western culture for the better part of two decades, should have bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young Bob Woodwards itching to get out there to make their journalistic bones.
Sadly, it doesn’t.
And while all the time in the world is being spent on the “Global Climate Summit” in Copenhagen next week, the fraudulent science behind the summit – and the uncovering of e-mails between the movement’s main players seemingly confirming it – have yet to be acknowledged.
Julia A. Seymour at the Media and Business Institute writes:
It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.
Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.
Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC’s Sunday talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
One can only imagine the hullabaloo if, hypothetically, the hacked e-mails of CRU were discovered to be bogus. If it turned out, for example, that the e-mails were created by a band of disgruntled scientists who were angry at not receiving a beaucoup of grant money like the global warming big boys (because, after all, there is no money in denying global warming), the alphabets would be all over it like Joe Biden on dumb. Round the clock coverage of Tiger Woods’ infidelity might even seen a break over that one.
As it is, this may be the biggest story to be ignored since Saddam Hussein’s food-for-oil scandal.
And why is it so big?
Because the religion of man-made global warming is poised to change the way the entire world functions on almost every level of existence. The belief that the earth is in peril because of human activity, and the actions that will be taken by hysterical alarmists to combat it, without a stitch of proof, will literally reshape the entire world’s economy and spawn a plethora of policies that will cripple prosperity and productivity. It is an imposition of blind faith through stringent regulations and free-market killing initiatives. It is a form of tyranny, based on a phantom crisis, that will erode liberty, impede progress, and put countless people out of work while conferring the kind of power on government that would make a totalitarian blush with envy.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if every one of these enviro-fascists believe the world is fixed to come to a horrific end in thirty years (or whatever the latest timetable to doomsday is). It doesn’t matter to me if they believe the planet will die because there are too many SUVs on the roads or because my toilet tissue has too many plys to it – the same way it doesn’t matter to me if there are religious people who believe Judgment Day is three years away.
The difference, however, is that the beliefs of the conventionally religious, as irrational as they may appear to some, will not shatter entire economies. Belief that the world is six-thousand years old, for instance, harms no one else, whereas levying exorbitant taxes on corporations that go over their allotted limit of greenhouse gas emissions because of fraudulent, politically-driven, pseudo-science will do irreparable damage.
The myth of global warming will do more harm than the fairy-tale calamities dreamed up by the global warming scaremongers.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell the enviro-fascists where they can stick their squiggly light-bulbs, but then I might be accused of lobbying for proctologists.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Big Three Networks, climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, global warming hoax, hacked e-mails, University of East Anglia | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009
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.
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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, Climategate, global climate change, Global Warming, Michael Mann, Phil Jones | 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.
Posted in Global Warming, Joe Biden | Tagged: global climate change, Global Warming, global warming hoax, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 29, 2009
And so it turns out, perhaps not surprisingly, that much of the raw data amassed from weather stations across the globe over the years – the very data which has been used to codify and forecast an impending global warming catastrophe – is forever lost. That means the conclusions drawn by doomsayers based on that now long gone data cannot be checked or “peer reviewed” by other academics. Scientists at University of East Anglia (UEA), the womb from where the current “climategate” scandal was born, announced that the raw numbers were thrown away.
The words “How Convenient” come to mind.
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor of the Times Online, writes:
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
If nothing else, in the name of “science,” wouldn’t it just make sense to wipe the “Earth-is-in-peril” climactic slate clean and start over? In light of the current scandal, and seeing as the only data available for review are “adjusted” or “revised” figures, isn’t it more reasonable to conclude that dire global warming predictions are, at best, questionable and worthy of a “reset?” Wouldn’t it seem to be appropriate for man-made global warming skeptics (who are willing to admit that they may be wrong) to team up with global warming militants (who believe they cannot possibly be wrong) and try and make heads or tails of all of this “settled science” through credible means?
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, East Anglia CRU, Global Warming, global warming hoax, lost raw data, Phil Jones, UEA | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 27, 2009
There can be no doubt whatsoever that if a series of e-mails between high-level government officials was duvulged suggesting that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an inside job (as many 9/11-truthers religiously believe) the entirety of the media and entertainment complex would be set on its ever-loving ear.
Such a story would consume all means of news dissemination known to mankind. It would devour all broadcast media airtime. The number of trees that would lose their lives in order to accommodate a frantic print media would make Ed Begley, Jr’s skull rupture. There wouldn’t be enough bandwidth available to handle the overload of slavering conspiracists, outraged mouse-clickers and pajama-wearing blog spinsters. The shockwaves of such a capacious deception would be felt in every corner of the world. Every news outlet in possession of at least one stenographer’s pad and ball point pen would dispatch their slimiest, most-aggressive, most-implacable investigative reporters to do as much digging as their insatiable journalistic appetites (or the limits of the law) would allow.
As it should be.
What, then, can be said of the latest – and, by far, the greatest – evidence (outside of the climate itself) that the man-made global warming threat is an indubitable hoax of epic proportion? If the mainstream media of the United States is any indication, not too much. Although the blades of the global warming windmill are falling off the spindle quicker than a polar bear from an Arctic ice chunk, the East Anglia “Climategate” e-mails are still being characterized (if they’re even mentioned at all) by the mainstreamies as no big deal – examples of some unfortunate, inside-baseball stuff taken out of context by a hacker. The significance of the damning e-mails is greatly exaggerated according to those who know, despite every bit of evidence to the contrary, that the Earth faces untold calamities due to global warming – even though it isn’t warming. They are frantically, desperately fighting to save the ship despite the fact that the ship is doing perfectly well, taking on no water and under no threat.
It is surreal.
Indeed, this is a story that ought to be plastered across every front page of the world. This charade, which has been called the greatest threat facing humanity and has been inculcated into every orifice of western culture for the better part of two decades, should have bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young Bob Woodwards itching to get out there to make their journalistic bones. The exposure (and confirmation) of this epic myth should have the world’s press banging at the door of Al Gore demanding to know what the hell is going on. The ferocious push by world leaders, brainwashed bootlickers, frightened backscratchers and brain-dead ideologues over the past two decades to literally change the face of the global economy based on absolutely unproven, unsubstantiated, phony, agenda-driven junk-science is such that this story should be the biggest since 9/11. It should be told at every corner of the globe and be called precisely what it is – the final clincher of the greatest hoax ever to be thrust upon humankind.
But it isn’t.
It’s getting there.
Gerald Warner of the UK Telegraph has an interesting perspective:
Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al [Gore], and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.
It would be quite nice, in a more perfect world – or at least one commandeered by common sense – to believe that this greatest of all swindles could serve to open the eyes of the indoctrinated climate-change zealots heading to Copenhagen in December, but I have no such allusions. Even if the very airplanes bringing some of these doomsayers to Denmark for the Climate Conference wound up being held over because the wings needed to be de-iced, it wouldn’t change the thinking. It is “settled science,” after all. The debate is long since over. Global warming remains mankind’s greatest danger. The science is as certain as ever – even though scientists are baffled as to why the world has been cooling over the last ten years.
And while my local weatherman can’t seem to get the weekend weather forecast quite right, we are to believe these eco-fascists somehow know for certain what will be happening in thirty years.
And although not a single “global warming” computer model predicted the current ten-year cooling trend, we are to believe these enviro-brown shirts can predict the doom of the planet.
From the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal yesterday:
But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.
According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the “peer-review” process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.
This past September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: “Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.” Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who fact-checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds—including some in Mr. Mann’s work—on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more-famous papers.
An encouraging note:
In Australia yesterday, five Liberal Party frontbenchers resigned their portfolios because they could not, in good conscience, vote for that country’s equivalent of Cap and Trade – the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
Meanwhile, with President Obama preparing for his departure to Copenhagen on December 9th, there are still too few Americans who know the details of this story – if they’ve even heard it at all – or its implications. There are too many in the United States who get their information from lock-step, liberal conventional wisdom conveyed to them through the tentacles of popular culture. Fox News is, indeed, covering the story to a certain extent, but it is otherwise being largely ignored by the rest of the alphabets and sycophants.
Incidentally, you may recall that not too long ago British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned us that the world had a mere fifty days to save itself from certain global-warming induced doom.
How time flies.
There are only eleven days left.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Cliamte Conference, climate change, Climategate, East Anglia CRU, global cooling. climate change, Global Warming, global warming fraud, global warming hoax, hacked e-mails, Obama in Copenhagen | 1 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.
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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Phil Jones | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009
Is there anything more aggravating than having someone you have defended tirelessly turn on you? Is there anything worse than having someone you did your best to protect with every fiber of your being play Judas? Can the words “betrayal” and “disloyalty” even begin to cover it? Can anything be more distressing? More shocking? Sure, we can expect such things from false friends, jealous co-workers, jilted lovers oand angry siblings. We can anticipate such behavior from our elected officials, our bosses, and even, on occassion, our spouses. But from our planet?
Et tu, earth?
How in the world can the impending calamity of a planet ravaged by the effects of man-made global warming be taken seriously if the damn planet won’t even get warm anymore?
Scientists are baffled.
Gerald Traufetter at Speigel Online writes:
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Well, thank goodness Copenhagen has fallen in line.
First of all, I am struck by the incongruity of the third passage of the Speigel article. Traufetter states that the planet’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium – which, as far as I can tell means they are no longer going up. That’s what “stopped” means, if I am any judge of the word “stop.” Then, in the next sentence he says, “it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.”
If warming, by definition, means a rise in temperatures, and if temperatures have “stopped” rising since the start of the millennium, how could it look as though global warming might come to a standstill this year? Didn’t it already “stop” getting warmer at the beginning of the millennium? Isn’t “stop” a synonym for “standstill?” And seeing as temperatures haven’t been climbing for almost a decade, is it still possible for the earth to be warming? If so, how?
Poor hysterical doomsdayers. Nothing is working out for them.
Damn the planet for not cooperating!
And it sounds as if this disobliging ball of climactic confusion is breaking the hearts of the ever-loyal enviro-wackos.
Meteorologist Mojib Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, confirmed that “warming is taking a break.” It’s a clever cover-your-backside kind of thing to say considering the earth’s temperatures have always been cyclical. At some point, warming will always take a break, just like cooling will always take a break. (Think Ice Age, before there were SUVs and CFCs).
On the realization that the world is not getting warmer, as hasn’t for ten years, Latif said, “We have to face that fact.”
He sounded depressed.
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Not a single computer model predicted this “non-warming” trend, incidentally.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, global cooling, Global Warming | 1 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“.
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.
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.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, environmentalism, Foreign Policy, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Barack Obama failure, Christian Schwagerl, Copenhagen, global climate change, Global Warming, Obama failed the world, Speigel Online | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
A short one-question quiz.
What significance does the number 71 have in relation to President Barack H. Obama?
Take your time.
It isn’t a trick question.
No, it’s not the number of “trillions” that will comprise the national debt once he’s done bankrupting the nation’s future. No, it’s not the number of times he used the words “I” or “me” during his recent “Fall of the Berlin Wall” pre-recorded speech. It isn’t the number of people turned in by fellow citizens during President Obama’s “Please Snitch on Anyone Who Talks Bad About My Health Care Plan” initiative earlier this year. It isn’t the amount of apologies he’s issued for the sins of his own country. It isn’t the amount of teleprompters he has in tow whenever he speaks. It isn’t the amount of times he has bowed to foreign heads of state. It isn’t even how many states he thinks make up the United States.
It is, in fact, the number of vehicles that made of Barack Obama’s motorcade as he traveled from Beijing airport.
Of course, I’m no climactic virtuoso (like, say, Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio), but unless those cars were powered by an army of hamsters under the hood, I’m guessing that motorcade must’ve been a veritable orgy of greenhouse gas emissions.
Not that it matters to me, mind you, but isn’t that one hell of a carbon footprint?
Posted in Global Warming | Tagged: climate change, Global Warming, motorcade, Obama in China | 3 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009
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.
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!
Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: carbon credits, carbon footprints, environmentalism, global climate change, Global Warming, Lord Christopher Smith | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 2, 2009
I don’t recall the last the time the United Nations – the organization that puts terrorist nations on its Human Rights Council and condemns Israel with as much regularity as a teleprompter-free Barack Obama says, “uh” – took the moral high road and stood up for anything. I can’t remember when I was able to use the word “strength” and “courage” in the same sentence as the United Nations, other than to praise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his magnificent speech there in September. The “body” that was created to prevent such atrocities as the Holocaust from ever happening again has afforded the world’s most dangerous terrorists, murderers, and violators of human rights a forum from which to spew their disgusting lies and hateful rhetoric. It is the Woodstock of moral depravity.
Of course, I say this from the perspective of one who believes it is the moral obligation of human beings to fight and defeat evil.
Others, unfortunately, don’t subscribe to that value system – or if they do, their definition of “evil” is often considerably different than my own.
Thus, if one believes the defining of evil is better approached as a subjective matter (i.e., one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter), then the United Nations really has nothing to stand up for – that is, aside from the universally accepted “evils” that are beyond deliberation, like global warming and climate change.
Those “evils” are given.
Trivialities (and inconveniences) such as ethnic cleansing, missile launches into civilian populations, and gross human rights violations simply don’t ruffle the feathers of the United Nations.
However, if one can somehow squeeze in the words “carbon emissions” or “climate change” into the discussion, there aren’t enough sandbags in all the world to hold back the fury to come.
The United Nation’s Climate Chief – a title that sounds as if it has to be made up – is drawing on his inner George S. Patton, saying that December’s global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark had not only better yield an agreement that will save the planet from sure destruction, but it had better be enforceable.
Arthur Max of the Associated Press writes:
Developing countries don’t trust wealthy nations’ promises that they will help them meet the challenges of climate change, the U.N.’s top climate official said Monday, adding that means any new global warming deal must have legal force.
The legal status of an agreement and whether nations will be sanctioned for failing to meet their commitments are contentious issues in talks on controlling the world’s emissions of carbon and other heat-raising greenhouse gases.
“We live in a world of broken promises,” said Yvo de Boer, the U.N. climate chief, told The Associated Press. Developing countries are concerned “they will commit to targets and not deliver.”
He spoke as negotiators resumed work Monday on a draft agreement for approval at a major U.N. conference next month in the Danish capital of Copenhagen.
Actually, we live in world of twisted morality and warped value systems, Mr. Climate Chief.
“We expect the United States to be able to deliver on one of the major challenges of our century,” said Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard, who will chair the Copenhagen meeting.
Hedegaard noted that President Barack Obama will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in the neighboring country of Norway on Dec. 10 — just as the decisive climate conference is under way.
“It’s very hard to imaging how the American president can receive the Nobel prize for his contributions to hope in the world … and at the same time has sent an empty-handed delegation to Copenhagen,” said the Danish minister.
The bills in Congress would commit the U.S. to reduce emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by 17 to 20 percent from 2005 levels.
Ah, yes. The President of the United States did, in fact, win the Nobel Peace Prize. I should have remembered that. As I recall, it had something to do with “hope” and “change” or some other utterly meaningless hyperbole that has literally contributed nothing – repeat, nothing – to peace.
I cannot help but wonder if the children of Israel, who had to contend with terrorist missiles raining down on their neighborhoods, managed to summon at least a little bit of that Obama “hope” as the weapons fell from the sky.
If not, what the hell was wrong with them?
And note that Mr. Hedegaard specifically pointed out how difficult it would be to fathom a Nobel Peace Prize winner, like Barack Obama, not bringing back an American-economy crippling, climate saving bill to Copenhagen next month – further proof, that the bogus prize was handed out not because of the impressive accomplishments of the one-time Community Organizer from Chicago, but as a call from leftist Europe as to what is expected of him.
Using history as our guide, take a moment and contemplate this question …
If greenhouse gases actually were a problem, and if they could be personified, would they have anything to worry about at all?
This is, after all, the United Nations we’re talking about.
The Lucky Charms leprechaun is quicker to intimidate than the UN.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, United Nations | Tagged: climate change, Copenhagen, Copenhagen Treaty, global cooling, Global Warming, Obama in Copenhagen, United Nations, Yvo de Boer | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009
A week ago today, thousands of people across the globe participated in a “Global Day of Action” to “encourage world leaders to help stop climate change.” (You must have read about it). According to the Toronto Sun, “the events kicked off in Australia, where thousands of people formed a large “350” number with their bodies in front of the famous Sydney opera house and displayed placards with the number on the hotspot Bondi Beach.” (That’s because these events were put together by a group called 350.org, a band of hysterical doomsdayers hell-bent on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to 350 parts per million from the current planet-slaying total of 387. Clever, yes?)
Meanwhile, in Denver, Colorado, the biggest October storm to hit in twelve years is crippling the metropolitan area. As much as two feet of snow is on the ground in some areas.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that Nebraska and Kansas experienced blizzard conditions yesterday as the global warming freight train came barreling through.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, global cooling, Global Warming | 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.
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?
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: CO2 emmissions on food labels, global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, Sweden | 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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, record cold temperatues | 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.
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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Copenhagen Treaty, global climate change, Global Climate Change Treaty, Global Warming, Lord Christopher Monckton | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009
I 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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: environmentalism, global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, Gordon Brown | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009
That meteorologists and other weather predicting specialists often have a hard enough time dealing with the extended five-day forecast doesn’t ever seem to bother the save-the-earth climate warriors. The certitude with which leftists and other children predict the end of the planet as we know it due to global-warming (within a generation or two, they say) is surpassed only by their eerie ability to coin a dim-witted – and entirely incorrect – phrase for in-unison chanting and demonstration sign painting.
The term “flat earther” is a popular phrase I’ve heard bandied about to describe those who are skeptical of the notion of a planet in danger due to this climate-killing inevitability. And while I will concede it is a commendable attempt at intertwining environmental consciousness, witty nomenclature and historical awareness, it is – in a word – stupid.
Indeed, as readers of this blog are well aware, I am one who unabashedly – passionately – rejects the view that the planet is in peril, or that it is on the verge of irreversible devastation, or that it is teetering on the edge of complete destruction due to the dangerous warming of the earth (now called “global climate change” because of recent, unmistakeable cooling trends) – thus, I am a flat earther.
Eleanor Wolf, a columnist with the Leader-Telegraph of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, last year commented on Republicans in her state who denounced the global warming threat in a column she called, cleverly enough, “Flat Earth Republicans.” The link, interestingly, has since been broken; but trust me on this, she did write it.
Republican state representatives attending a recent meeting in Eau Claire called the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Global Warming “hairbrained”(sic) and “nonsensical.” Rep. Terry Moulton obviously represents the “flat Earth” contingent when he stated that “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”
I love the word “harebrained” – particularly when it’s spelled correctly. I must use it somewhere.
There are two things to point out here.
One – the modern connotation of “flat earth” largely originates from Washington Irvin’s fantasy novel “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,” published in 1828. It is from there that the myth of medieval Europeans believing that the earth was flat was propagated. How ironic that the term “flat earth” was, too, used by Darwinists in the 19th Century as a weapon against Christians. In fact, Christians believed in a spherical earth, dating back to – and far beyond – the medieval period.
Two – the belief in a flat earth was ubiquitous among humans until the Classical Greek period. Up until that period, believers in a flat earth were virtually unanimous. It was, to summon a phrase, conventional wisdom – much like the granola-chomping notion of an earth so delicate and so fragile that it is about to descend into an environmentally-induced chasm of grim death is today. It took time for the majority to swing in the other direction.
Overwhelmingly, academia and the media have bought into the hysterical claims of impending global-warming doom – and admittedly, so have the majority of the scientific community.
Don’t be fooled, however.
Many of the most well-known, accomplished, distinguished, learned people on the subject of climatology do not believe we’re on the eve of destruction. They have no agenda, are not concerned with angering those who would provide critical funding, understand the millennia-old patterns of climate fluctuation and can cite as many examples of growing glaciers as they can of melting ones.
Ms. Wolf, in her column, went on to say:
Moulton and his Republican cohorts choose to ignore scientific consensus as presented in the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report stated: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. There is a very high confidence that human activities since 1750 have played a significant role by overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, hence retaining solar heat that would otherwise radiate away.”
Those nasty, nasty hot air balloons…
The idea of a “consensus” on the matter is absolute nonsense – and the debate is nowhere near over, as those renowned virtuosos of climatology, Al Gore and Barack Obama, have declared.
One of my favorite quotes about those of us who rebuff the claims of looming disaster actually comes from a blog I used to frequent. A particularly ardent proponent of imminent earthly demise, a blogger who went by the name of “green_or_die” (I’m not making that up), wrote:
“In a few years, climate change skeptics will be ranked alongside the Flat Earth Society.”
There’s that phrase again.
If I may …
It would be more accurate to say, “In a few years, the belief in ‘climate change due to human activity’ will be ranked along other fossilized, antiquated concepts – like, for instance, the idea of a flat earth.”
Add to that the disastrous threat of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the United States during the 1980s, the running out of natural resources by the year 1990, the indisputable danger posed by global cooling in the 1970s, and the prediction that the New York Jets, at home, would beat the lowly Buffalo Bills yesterday.
Don’t get me started on that.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: "Flat Earth", Conservatism, conservative, environmentalism, environmentalists, global cooling, Global Warming, Green | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 12, 2009
It 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).
“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!
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: Al Gore, Conservatism, environmentalism, global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming | 3 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 10, 2009
This 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.
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.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: Chicago, conservative, Environmental Disaster, global climate change, global cooling, Global Warming, Snow In October | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 23, 2009
Indeed, these are the types of stories that so flow with delectable irony that to comment on them seems almost like cheating.
Still, I haven’t the willpower to resist.
If the ever-worsening condition of the planet due to man-made global warming can be quantified in part by the global footprints we leave behind through our actions, then this week in New York City is helping to assure that there is no hope whatsoever for our ailing globe. As world leaders gather in the Big Apple to address the ever-nauseating, never-relevant United Nations Summit on Climate Change, the carbon footprints these environmental warriors are leaving behind is nothing short of catastrophic – if you are inclined to hysteria.
Mark Knoller at Political Hotsheet writes:
It happens every autumn: midtown Manhattan becomes the motorcade capital of the world. Each foreign leader in town has a convoy of vehicles. Some of them, like President Obama’s motorcade, are 20-to-30 vehicles in length. It’s so long – it seems that when the front of it reaches the U.N., the back end is still back at his hotel.
Exacerbating the annual exercise in diplomatic gridlock are police actions, blocking intersections and closing streets for security to facilitate motorcade movements. It renders countless other vehicles immobile while waiting for motorcades to pass, their engines idling but still blowing exhaust into the midtown air
Does it undermine the goal of the climate change summit and cause the pledges of environmental concern to ring hollow?
Asked about it, White House climate change negotiator Todd Sterns had a suggestion.
“I think the U.N. should make a pledge to electric vehicle motorcades within five years,” he said.
Right. As soon as all U.N. diplomats pay their parking tickets.
Former Vice President Al Gore, purported to be on his private jet heading for a Global Warming symposium, could not be reached for comment.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: Carbon Footprint, climate change, environmentalism, Global Warming, UN Summit on Climate Change | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 22, 2009
Do as I say, not as I do
If you haven’t done so already, please stop whatever you’re doing, suspend anything and everything you may be involved in – except reading this particular blog entry, of course – and heed the words you are about to ingest. Those of you who choose to waste their focus and concerns on such passe things as the War Against Islamo-Fascism (or other right-wing concoctions) not only directly place the lives of their fellow human beings in imminent peril, but also threaten the very well-being and future of the planet.
There are real issues to tend to.
It isn’t about good versus evil. Rather, it is about green versus brown, cold versus hot, envirnomentalism versus dastardly capitalism.
With our globe hanging in the balance, thanks to the ongoing ravages being inflicted on the planet by humankind, the latest admonishions from Great Britian’s foremost thinker and climatologist, Prince Charles, are as relevant as ever. His warning is racing around the globe like angry greenhouse gas molecules on steroids.
We had best pay attention.
The future King of England is urging humans, wherever they may roam – in the name of reducing crabin emissions – to abandon their motor cars in favor of public transportation and walking.
Andrew Pierce from the Telegraph.UK website writes:
The Prince, who has two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and still drives an Aston Martin given to him by the Queen on his 21st birthday, said developers had a duty to put public transport and the pedestrian at the heart of their housing schemes.
Speaking about the “domination of the car over the pedestrian”, the future King said: “We must surely be able to organise ourselves… in ways in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”
The Prince said the principle of “elevating the pedestrian above the car” was one of the guiding factors of Poundbury – his model development in Dorset. The importance of “pedestrian friendly public space” is central to the Poundbury ethos.
He said that his architectural charity – the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment – was creating a “natural house” using green materials such as clay blocks and sheep’s wool for insulation. It is taking shape at the Building Research Establishment’s Innovation Park in Watford.
Did you catch that? Clay blocks and sheep’s wool.
And seeing as nothing quite brings home the point better than leading by example, it is not unreasonable to inquire of the Prince how long the transformation from stone and brick to mud and fur will take at Buckingham Palace?
What, pray tell, oh future King of England, are the electricity bills at Buckingham Palace each month?
Is the bathroom tissue at the Palace (or on your jet, or on your yacht) single-ply, easily-degradable, restaurant-grade paper, oh King-to-be?
And do you use only one square at a time?
As one blogger wrote, “When was the last time this pampered pooch walked anywhere?”
Another wrote, “On your bike, mate!”
In other news, the world is not warming, it has been a very quiet Atlantic hurricane season, and Michael Jackson is still dead.
Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: abandon your cars, Clay blocks and sheep's wool, climate change, environmentalism, environmentally friendly, Global Warming, Prince Charles | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 20, 2009
I would like to take an enormous “attaboy” out of petty cash and present it to Stephen Sackur of the BBC.
Yes, the BBC.
I know this little morsel is currently making its way across the blogosphere, but it was only brought to my attention earlier today, thanks to Dennis Prager’s radio program. (Isn’t it annoying how work can keep one from updating one’s blog?)
A little over a month ago, the activist organization Greenpeace – led by Gerd Leipold – put out a press release saying that the humanity-induced catastrophe of global warming is advancing with such ferocity that in another twenty-one years, Arctic ice will be nothing but a memory.
And since Leipold is the top dog at Greenpeace, it is not unreasonable to presume that he would probably have final approval of (or at the very least be aware of) any official statements put out by the organization – including that one.
Among the other declarations, predictions and recitations of impending doom in the July 15th press release was this one:
As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.
Thanks to a brief but voracious outbreak of genuine journalism at the BBC, Stephen Sackur of HARDtalk was able to get Leipold to not only admit that the absurd claim of disappearing Arctic ice was probably not true, but that emotionalizing an issue (or “scare tactics,” as Mr. Sackur suggests) is employed by Greenpeace as a means to an end.
Here was a portion of the exchange:
SACKUR: But when you, in one of your press releases that I read, on July 15th say this – and this Greenpeace’s own press release – “As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030,” I mean that is just plain misleading, isn’t it?
LEIPOLD: I don’t think that it’s plain misleading. I know that there’s uncertainties. I’m a climate scientist myself.
SACKUR: But the Arctic includes the Greenland ice sheet. I mean, the Greenland ice sheet is in the Arctic. That’s not going to melt by 2030. That’s preposterous.
LEIPOLD: The Greenland ice sheet is already retreating, and the people there can tell it.
SACKUR: Forgive me, the Greenland ice sheet, from where I have just come, is 1.6 square kilometers. It is three kilometers thick in the middle. It’s been there for hundreds of thousands of years. It’s survived previous warming periods much warmer than we see today or will see tomorrow. There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear.
LEIPOLD: What we have said, by and large, over the last twenty years, I think, was wise and was rational and reasonable to it. And we were confronted with a world, unfortunately, (that) only recently has woken up to it. And we – as a pressure group – have to emotionalize issues. We are not ashamed of emotionalizing issues. I think it’s a fact.
SACKUR: You call it emotionalizing. Others would call it “scare tactics.” Will you sit here now and tell me, in all honesty, that you do not that the Greenland ice sheet is going to melt by 2030?
LEIPOLD: I don’t know. I don’t think it will be melting by 2030.
SACKUR: So, in fact, would you say that it was a mistake for your organization to put that out?
LEIPOLD: It may have been a mistake. I don’t know this specific press release. I do not check every press release.”
Apparently, the head of Greenpeace has more important matters to tend to than being cognizant of what the organization he runs is saying publicly in press releases. He’d probably say he’s not a micromanager. He delegates.
To be fair, he may have been preoccupied with moving his personal effects from his basement to his attic in preparation of the raging flood waters that are on the way thanks to the melting Artic ice.
Frankly, Mr. Leipold looked like a deer in headlights, frightfully unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with a professional – much like the current New York Mets lineup.
Here is a video of the exchange:
In a related story, according to the Copenhagen Post, dated 19 August:
“The Foreign Ministry has cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel reservations meant for people attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December. The move is expected to cost the hotel industry about 40 million kroner in lost revenue. The ministry described the cancellations as a natural ‘adjustment’. But Thomas Færgeman, the director of environmental think tank Concito, was concerned the government had lost confidence that it could broker a ground-breaking climate and had therefore lowered expectations as to how many participants were expected.”
It probably had nothing to do with the fact that more and more people are coming to the realization that global warming, i.e. climate change, is (thus far) the 21st Century’s biggest farce – next to Al Sharpton and MSNBC.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: BBC, climate change, Gerd Leipold, Global Warming, Greenpeace, HARDtalk, Stephen Sackur | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 18, 2009
From the beginning, it's been us
It’s about time someone came out and said it. It’s about time someone had the courage to step up to the plate and say what so many of us have been thinking. There’s a certain kind of vindication – a feeling of exoneration and, yes, even victory – in having something corroborated that you’ve always known to be true in your heart, but couldn’t prove – namely, that man’s very existence causes global warming.
While I have no plans to immediately slit my own wrists, there’s no question that I deserve it.
As do you.
And we all owe it to the Earth.
From The Economist:
Anthropogenic global warming started when people began farming.
Imagine a small group of farmers tending a rice paddy some 5,000 years ago in eastern Asia or sowing seeds in a freshly cleared forest in Europe a couple of thousand years before that. It is here, a small group of scientists would have you believe, that humanity launched climate change. Long before the Industrial Revolution—indeed, long before a worldwide revolution in intensive farming, the results of which kept humanity alive—people caused unnatural exhalations of greenhouse gases that had an impact on the world’s climate.
It looks as if humanity has been interfering with the climate since the dawn of civilisation.
While there is so much begging to be said, is there anything that can remotely hold a candle to the notion that human exhalations of carbon dioxide can be considered “unnatural?”
Naturally, my first question would be … What level of human exhalation would have been more “natural?”
It’s not unlike asking a global warming hysteric, “What should the temperature be right now?”
Of course, global warming nutcases, climate change screwballs, and environmentalist whackjobs view humanity itself as being unnatural.
The totality of all existence is natural except humanity.
Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, Global Warming | 1 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.
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: global climate change, Global Warming, nashville tennessee | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on July 20, 2009
I’m not sure exactly if it is a prerequisite for all members of Obama’s Transformation Team, nor can I say for sure whether or not special “groveling” seminars were attended by Obamacrats looking to score points, but this getting beyong ridiculous. I, for one, am getting more than a little tired of having to hear high-ranking members of the United States government either apologize, express regret, or otherwise place “blame” on this country for “mistakes” made in the past – and on foreign soil, yet!
It is already well-known the President himself has mastered the art of diplomatic anguish, but now Americans are getting the opportunity to see other Obamacrats in action.
It’s Hillary’s turn.
Being an imperialist, war-hungry state hell-bent on imposing values on other nations is one thing. But contributing to the ruination of the planet due to the crippling effects of man-made Global Warming is another entirely.
Robert Burns of the Associated Press writes:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a three-day visit to India on Saturday by urging India not to repeat American mistakes in contributing to global pollution, and she passionately defended U.S. demands for help in fighting terrorism.
“We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” she said. “We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”
She was referring to Obama’s statement in Italy earlier this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short” of its responsibilities in controlling its carbon emissions.
Sources have confirmed that that the solar-powered, enviro-friendly wind barge she was to take to India last week was still undergoing repairs.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change, Clinton apologizes, Global Warming, Hillary Clinton, India | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on July 9, 2009
There is not a scintilla of courage to be found in taking the position that the planet is in grave danger due to the effects of man-made global warming. There is nothing honorable or gallant in taking the public stance that humankind is placing the planet in peril due to the destructive effects of climate change. It takes no heroism to run blindly with the cackling mob on this overplayed, over-hyped, hysterically concocted hoax of a matter, especially when the hypothesis is wholly unproven and the so-called science behind it is little more than the proliferation of a wacko political agenda – just the latest disaster waiting to wipe out humanity (and the planet).
Yet, according to Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett, it’s precisely “courage” that will be needed if President Barack Obama is actually going to get off his waffle and lead the fight to nip global warming right on it’s globe-destroying ass.
My only real question is … If the continued trend of decreasing global temperatures is not to be considered the most relevant indication that man-made global warming is not happening, then what is?
What precisely is the perfect temperature for 9 July 2009 at 8:00PM in the evening in New York City? What is the “right” condition for this date and time?
Maybe we should ask the Greenpeace activists in South Dakota who were arrested for hanging a large banner next to the face of Abraham Lincoln on Mount Rushmore yesterday.
The read: “America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming.”
Isn’t that just delicious?
(Note that the words “Climate Change” were not used).
From the AFP:
Greenpeace activists were arrested Wednesday for scaling Mount Rushmore and hanging a banner next to the carved face of Abraham Lincoln urging President Barack Obama to get tough on climate change.
A video posted on the environmental group’s website showed the massive banner hanging on the South Dakota mountain face.
“Doing what it takes to solve global warming demands real political courage,” Greenpeace USA deputy campaigns director Carroll Muffett said in a statement.
“If President Obama intends to earn a place among this country’s true leaders, he needs to show that courage, and base his actions on the scientific reality rather than political convenience.”
The protest comes as Obama meets with other G8 leaders in Italy.
G8 leaders agreed to bear the brunt of steep global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, saying developed countries should reduce their pollution by 80 percent by 2050, a summit declaration said.
Greenpeace said the 11 climbers “took special care not to damage the monument, using existing anchors placed by the National Park Service for periodic cleaning.”
There is simply no courage in modern liberalism.
Where is the fearlessness in today’s class of mainstream media potato-heads who overwhelmingly exist to promote the liberal agenda and do nothing to question what is only, at best, hysterical speculation?
Where is the bravery among Hollywood types who exist in a cocoon of single-minded, lock-step leftism, bellowing adamantly in friendly surroundings about the impending demise of Earth?
What kind of guts does it take to clench one’s fist and roar in favor of a stylish cause from among a crowd of stylish drones when not a single bit of scientific evidence supports the manmade global warming hoax?
(I’ll take caller six).
In other news, the month of June was the sixth coldest on Record in Boston, the coldest in Chicago in 40 years, the coldest since 1958 in New York, and the 7th coldest on record in Rapid City, South Dakota – which is about ten miles or so from Mount Rushmore.
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: climate change, Global Warming, Greenpeace, Mt. Rushmore | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on July 6, 2009
The Untouchables and The Twilight Zone were still a year away, but Chuck Berry’s all-time classic “Johnny B. Goode” was new and burning up turntables across the map. Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis Presley were still alive. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was born. And yes, the damn New York Yankees won yet another World Series.
It was also the year that brought the coolest month of June to New York City in thirty years.
It was 1958.
In fact, beginning in 1929, there hadn’t been a New York City June any cooler than the one that gripped the five boroughs that year.
So, what’s my point?
Just a quick exercise in dealing with reality.
Can you guess which year brought the second coolest June to the Big Apple since 1929?
(insert drumroll here)
If you said 2009, you are the winner. Take a hip-hip-hooray out of petty cash.
That’s right – this year has brought the second coolest June to New York City in eighty years.
As traitors and turncoats to planet Earth continue to deny that the world hangs perilously in the balance thanks to the imminent dangers of man-made global warming, temperatures last month averaged only 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit here – the eighth coolest June since four years after the Civil War ended.
But don’t allow things like cooler temperature readings blind you to the realities of a planet see-sawing precariously over the pits of ineluctable destruction.
Thank God human beings are causing temperatures across the globe to rise to near catastrophic levels. Thank goodness man-made global warming is propelling the Earth to almost irreparable levels of damage.
New York City might have been debilitated with the coming of a premature, crippling ice age otherwise.
Only human selfishness, indulgence and the thirst for profits helped to save us this time.
Freon, lead cans and Pampers for all!
Posted in Junk Science, Liberalism, Science | Tagged: climate change, coolest June since 1958, global cooling, Global Warming, New York City | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 30, 2009
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.
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: "Cap and Trade", climate change, global climate change, Global Warming, Henry Waxman, Paul Krugman, treason | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2009
It isn’t possible to swing a dead ferret (or one of a billion special-edition Obama Inaugural collector’s magazines that are still on sale at a newsstand near you) these days without hitting something that urges us to “Go Green.” There is hardly a place one can even draw a breath anymore without being peppered by pleas – nay, demands – that we, the citizenry of the world, live a “greener” lifestyle. From grocery store flyers to signs attached to garbage cans, from leftocrat school curricula to simple radio commercials, the ongoing, never-ending battle cry is “Go Green!” It is the mantra of today’s cause-obsessed left – always starving for some new morality to rally behind, while remaining steadfast in their unwillingness to take on the true enemies of humankind, namely evil humans.
Of course, the Grand Poobah of today’s environmentalist whitewash, Al Gore, would sooner call a Hummer-driving, air-conditioning-running, incandescent light-bulb burning supporter of George W. Bush evil before he would a suicide bomber who wipes out innocents, but I am speaking as an adult here, not a liberal.
The truth is, all roads in the current battle for a “greener” planet emanate from one place … the impending catastrophe of man-made global warming.
(It is imperative to clarify that the problem, as defined by the greenies, is “man-made.” If it were proven to these enviro-warriors that the warming they fear is simply a natural phenomenon, none of them would care if temperatures went up fifteen degrees, let alone one over the course of a century).
Not that the planet has been warming at all for several years, but as long as judgments don’t have to be levied against the value sets of other people (except, of course, in the case of greedy capitalists, fossil-fuel consuming narcissists and anyone who buys into the free market sham), morality can continue to be defined inappropriately and cowardly.
The irony is that for things to be “greener,” temperatures would, in fact, have to be warmer.
Remember your four seasons?
When things start to get “greener,” isn’t that something associated with warming temperatures? Aren’t spring and summer the times of year when the mercury is trending upward? Aren’t they the warm weather seasons?
Greener trees, shrubs and fields are almost always the result of rising temperatures. Most foliage thrives in the warm weather. Food is more plentiful when temperatures rise. Economically, warmer periods are more prodictive.
Wouldn’t it better – or, at least, make more sense – for the environmentalists to ask us all to “Go Grey?”
Or “Go Brown?”
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: "go green", environmentalism, global cooling, Global Warming, Green Planet | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2009
I have to assume planet Earth is still teetering on the brink of environmental disaster due to the ravages of man-made global warming. (I haven’t heard anything about it for a few hours, so I’m simply guessing).
As someone who fancies himself a bit of gardener, let’s just say that I don’t want to have to be subjected to this emotional roller coaster ride anymore.
Is there nothing humanity can do to try and make sure my impatiens and geraniums don’t go through another scare like this again? Or my begonias? Can people please stop being so self-absorbed with their combustion engines, hairspray cans and flatulence and pay attention to the potential damage they’re doing to my garden? This blasted man-made global warming almost ruined my flowers – and just when they were really starting to get going, too.
Luckily, all of my plants and flowers survived, but it was close.
Nothing throws a lump of black coal into my Cheerios bowl like a man-made global warming frost watch.
From UticaOD.com via The Drudge Report:
Local gardeners may want to take special measures to protect their plants this evening as a frost advisory has been issued for much of New York state, including Oneida County.
The advisory issued by the National Weather Service remains in effect until 8 a.m. Monday.
Temperatures are expected to fall into the mid-to-low 30s overnight, and a hard frost is likely as temperatures in colder areas approach freezing.
Brad Alcott, owner of Alcott’s Greenhouses in Waterville, said the possible frost may catch some gardeners off guard.
“Memorial Day has always been the rule of thumb for planting in the garden. So June 1 is definitely late,” he said.
What a selfish species we are.
Damn this global warming!
Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: climate change frost warning, Global Warming | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2009
The term “global warming,” which for a period of time had been unofficially replaced in the American lexicon with the phrase “climate change,” just doesn’t play well with a lot of people anymore. That the world is neither warming (and hasn’t been for several years) nor behaving in any way inconsistent with the cyclical climactic nature of its four billion year life span seems to be irrelevant to those attempting to determine why this is so.
According to John Broder of the New York Times, the term “turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes.” The reality that people may actually be tired of being bombarded day and night with nonsensical threats of a bogus global warming catastrophe doesn’t seem to enter into the minds of the people at EcoAmerica, the “nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm” that conducted a recent poll on the matter.
Rather, it is all in the packaging.
Thus, as liberals are wont to do when evidence, history and facts shatter their contrived calamities and political agendas, they change the label in the hope that the people will buy into the product.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”.”
EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.
Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. (Robert M.) Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.
Arrogance, thy name is environmentalism.
A question … The fact that “environmental issues” consistently rate near or at the bottom of polls couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that most people understand that the hysteria of impending doom that environmentalists like Al Gore peddle to the masses is pure hogwash, could it?
The idea that most people are not operating in red-alert panic mode over the preposterous claims that the planet is on or near the brink of irreversible devastation absolutely infuriates the greenie-wacko set. The problem, according to EcoAmerica, is that they just haven’t hit upon the right catchphrases, slogans or angles to sell their haggard agenda well enough.
If “global warming, as Mr. Perkowitz suggests, is perceived as a code phrase for “progressive liberals,” who exactly is to blame for that? If today’s environmentalism is associated with “progressive liberalism,” it’s because they are the ones who consistently and repeatedly latch onto crisis after phony crisis, hysteria after hysteria, doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario, with the fate of the planet and humanity hanging in the balance. There isn’t a crisis they won’t promote … or one they have gotten right. From global cooling to overpopulation, from resource depletion to the threat of heterosexual AIDS, from global warming to second-hand smoke, each new challenge is a threat to the very existence of humanity – and ultimately, the earth itself.
They’re batting 1.000.
They’ve been wrong every time.
It makes one wonder what the “perfect” temperature is, or what the “correct” number of people on earth would be, to today’s enviro-warriors.
If “global warming” was anything but political fodder for the Left, why would a name change even be necessary at all? Why would “campaigns” and “strategies” need to be devised to convince people of its very existence? The fact is, years and years of environmentalist screeching about the dangers of human activity and the effect it has on the climate ring less true to more and more people as global temperatures continue to go down – just as they always have after a warming trend. In other words, if the Left (and a few misguided rightists) genuinely believe that the danger facing the planet was clear-cut and irrefutable, why would their agenda need to be prettied up with more favorable focus-group-friendly phraseology?
This isn’t just a matter of finding the right bumper sticker slogan for an unknown product that needs public exposure. Anyone who has been alive and cognizant anywhere in the developed world over the past decade-and-a-half has heard the phrase “global warming” and knows what the phrase implies.
That many have rejected the product – with many more doing so each day – is proof that clarity of thought is not yet dead – only victims of lefticide.
Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: climate change, EcoAmerica, environmentalism, global cooling, Global Warming, Liberalism, politics, Robert M. Perkowitz | Leave a Comment »