July 8, 2009

"They’re saying, 'We just don’t trust you guys.' It's the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president."

Somehow Obama can't create agreement in the fight against "climate change" (formerly known as "global warming").

164 comments:

Original Mike said...

a proposal that would have committed the ... industrialized countries to slashing their emissions by 80 percent (by 2050)..

80%!!! Man, I want what these guys are smokin'.

traditionalguy said...

I know, and these Supreme Leaders around the globe know, that there is NO global climate change that can be affected by any actions of man. They just want to control capital flows and recieve a cut of the loot for their friends. That's politics. The tragedy is the perversion of science to accomplish the desired result with Science fiction movies and "Documentaries". They should make up the "Asteroid coming from outerspace" story and claim all our money to blow up the fake asteroid; and leave these weather myths alone

Patrick said...

the 'proposal' is called nuclear winter.

I certainly don't want what these guys are smoking, I have young kids and wouldn't want to walk off my 10th floor balcony by mistake!

Original Mike said...

Aw, come on Patrick. It'll be fun. Try it.

MadisonMan said...

Rather than mandating the cut, which seems a little horse before the cart-ish to me, why not implement policies that drive economic growth in that direction?

tradiationalguy: Full-blown Nuclear Exchanges would blast enough debris into the stratosphere to shade and cool the Earth pretty effectively. How long the cooling lasts is up for debate.

Original Mike said...

How long the cooling lasts is up for debate..

It would stop anthropogenic CO2 output cold. For a very long time.

junyo said...

The problem is global warming. Now let's not quibble about immeasurably of the effect or the cost/benefit ROI of the fix. Those are pedestrian concerns. The fact remains, you want the Earth cooler, now. You have a problem, I have the solution.

Various nation of the world will loan me a handful of nuclear weapons. I will place (most) of those weapons in or near the summit of active volcanoes around the world (excluding the one near my research lab/lair, of course haha). Detonation of those weapons, and the resultant airborne particulate mass will have immediate cooling effects. The volcanic eruptions afterward will magnify that effect. In fact with enough nukes and volcanoes, we could create our very own ice Age, one ruled by those with the foresight and vision to genetically engineer a race of super soldiers.. But I digress. The loss of life will be tragic, yet a small price to pay for the piece of mind that comes with knowing that we showed the planet who's boss, once and for all.

My proposal gentlemen, is simplicity itself. It solves your problem, let's me avenge, er make ammends, for my defeat at the hands of Capt. Fabulous, and puts your useless nuclear arsenal in safe hands, and productive use. I eagerly await your response.

Yours,
Junyo Baggadonuts
Mad Scientist

PatCA said...

If we can keep the gridlock going until the next scare, we'll be in good shape.

We were all supposed to be dead of starvation from overpopulation by now, so I'll take my chances on global warming...oops, climate change.

Bruce Hayden said...

The breakdown on climate change underscored the difficulty in bridging divisions between the most developed countries like the United States and developing nations like China and India.

Duh!

I can just see the approach: "Hey China, India, give up your chance to have a standard of living like ours so that NY City might not be under (a little bit of) water by the end of the century". Why do we believe this? Because Nobel Laureate (Peace Prize, but still authoritative) Al Gore vouches for the science.

Jeremy said...

"Climate change" is so 2008. Change Change is the new concern. We are not your grandfather's statists.

-The Other Jeremy

Bruce Hayden said...

We were all supposed to be dead of starvation from overpopulation by now, so I'll take my chances on global warming...oops, climate change.

Hey, if overpopulation or starvation is the issue, a little higher CO2 and/or temperature is likely to be quite advantageous.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ha ha...Looks like they are all about to break out into a Fred Astaire routine

Putting on the Ritz. They sure look like they are having a good time don't they?

Must be great to be at the top of the world and able to affect the lives of all us little peeps at the drop of a hat or the flick of a pen.

Bruce Hayden said...

I just a revelation.

A lot of us have been defensive about being Global Warming Denialists (or at least skeptics). But if we look globally, we are the majority. It is only in such backwards places like the east and west coasts of the U.S. and "old" Europe that we are a minority. But with 2.5 or so billion Chinese, Indians, etc. on our side, we are the majority.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So while Obama probably thinks he is Fred Astaire, suavey and deboner, I personally think he is more like

THIS and probably how the Russians see him as well.

Elliott A said...

If these people cannot agree on REAL problems, such as a nuclear Iran and North Korea, what sane person could expect agreement and action on IMAGINARY problems such as upwardly moving climate change. Climate change by itself is a meaningless phrase, since climate always changes. I feel that there are a lot of people out there living in a different universe than the one I find myself in.

Michael Hasenstab said...

Glaciers formed in North America about ten million years ago, then meltted about fourteen thousand years ago. Both events were caused by climate change, and neither was a result of mans' actions. Prove to me that change isn't a natural event.

People and governments that promote radical changes to the economy in order to prevent "climate change" are in it for the money, period. Like that soon-to- be billionaire Al Gore. Or the Fed Gov.

AJ Lynch said...

I was shooting the breeze the other day with an old friend. I mentioned I once owned a Ford LTD II and the thermostat broke in the frigid winter of 1978 or so. The car's windows would not defrost which made it hard to see out the windshield.

Anyway, one day I up and traded it in for a 1979 Jeep CJ-5 due to the cold frigging snowy winters we had been having.

Damn if it did not stop snowing for about four years until my wife was pregnant and I had to get rid of the Jeep. No lie.

Anyway, the other day, telling this story again, I realized I may have been the one who started global warming by buying that Jeep.

DADvocate said...

Trust? What's not to trust? Obama's kept all his campaign promises.

Climates always change. That's what climates do. Guess what happens if it gets too cold. Junyo knows. Next thing you know, Al Goring will be calling us Nazis.

Jim said...

Bruce -

"But with 2.5 or so billion Chinese, Indians, etc. on our side, we are the majority."

According to Al Gore's logic, since we are in the majority then that means the "science is settled," and we can go on to the next watermelon shibboleth.

[For those who don't get the reference, watermelon refers to being green (environmentalist) on the outside but red (communist) on the inside. It's not a racist reference.]

mccullough said...

That picture of the heads of state makes them look like The Rat Pack.

But Obama's giving off the Frank Sinatra vibe while Sarkozy takes over the Sammy Davis sidekick role.

Medvedev definitely evokes Peter Lawford.

Sigivald said...

Next thing you know, people will remember that Congress shot down Kyoto!

Sloanasaurus said...

The Chinese and Indians are laughing their asses off at us and our stupid leaders for believing in hocus pocus.

If they were really devious, they would agree to all the climate change nonsense and then not actually do anything different (kind of like the North Koreans with their nukes).

The Drill SGT said...

80%!!! Man, I want what these guys are smokin'.

Barack Obama called for House passage of the cap and trade tax bill last Friday by calling it a jobs bill. The bill is designed to raise the price of energy in the U.S. so much that it will reduce the use of fossil fuels by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050. Sentencing the U.S. economy to high cost energy is not a particularly good strategy for creating jobs. The Charles River Associates, a Harvard based economics consulting firm, estimates a net loss of jobs from the bill of about 2.5 million each year.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/01/cap-and-trade-dementia/print

dick said...

Then good for Congress when it shot down Kyoto. Best thing they could have done.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well I pretty much laugh at and disregard as a loon anyone who considers ‘global warming’ something I need to take seriously when they refer to skeptics as Holocaust Deniers and now AL Gore saying it’s a Hitlerean threat. I mean talk about jumping the Godwinian shark.

Original Mike said...

Global warming is the new Hitler?

Hoosier Daddy said...

He sure did

Frankly, I'm surprised it took him this long.

AJ Lynch said...

I wants me one of those new green jobs. Do you get a uniform?

Chip Ahoy should try to photoshop a uniform for a green job.

hdhouse said...

traditionalguy said...
I know....there is NO global climate change that can be affected by any actions of man"

Wow. don't let the swinging door of science, knowledge and fact hit you in your supersitious ass.

One reason there isn't concensus is that there a few of you "I know.." types floating around in a protective bubble of total ignorance and as you should well realize, that bubble of silliness you ride around in is no protection when you fall of the edge of the flat earth.

Original Mike said...

and now AL Gore saying it’s a Hitlerean threat..

Wow. Once you've gone there, there's nowhere else to go. What's left? Dumping gasoline on yourself in the public square and lighting it off?

Jim said...

hdhouse -

"One reason there isn't concensus is that there a few of you "I know.." types floating around in a protective bubble of total ignorance and as you should well realize, that bubble of silliness you ride around in is no protection when you fall of the edge of the flat earth."

Right..don't let the science of solar variation or the proven lies of "An Inconvenient Truth" stop you from believing your in your voodoo environmentalism.

We had this discussion a few days back, and I posted links to several examples of just how badly global warming claimants have been wrong while solar variation scientists have been accurate. Or how Al Gore's own charts in An Inconvenient Truth prove that it is warming which increases carbon dioxide not vice versa. Or the other 35 blatant lies and exagerrations in his so-called documentary.

You're the one who's ignoring the science in the name of your secular religion. Keep shoveling your money to Al Gore while he gets rich laughing down his nose at the gullible rubes like yourself if you like, but there's a reason that Pelosi disinvited him speaking on Capitol Hill when the cap-and-trade bill was being voted on in the House. He is a fraud, and you've been sold a bill of goods.

Maybe if you'd been around for a while then you'd know that the same "global warming" people were warning of a coming Ice Age 20 years ago, have already abandoned "global warming" because it was discredited, and have now moved on to the ambiguous term "atmospheric deterioration."

You're the one still claiming that the sun revolves around Earth while everyone else has figured out Earth's proper place in the solar system. Catch up with the times.

KLDAVIS said...

"climate change" (formerly known as "global warming")

Yes, because somewhere along the way, somebody realized that they really had no idea whether the Earth was really going to get any warmer, and that models and predictions were often pointing to just the opposite. So, "climate change" is hedging their bets, and it allows them to be right no matter what happens. You can always bet on change, except (I guess) when you can't.

holdfast said...

Bruce - Power to the people! Forward the masses!

holdfast said...

Blogger Original Mike said...

and now AL Gore saying it’s a Hitlerean threat..

" Wow. Once you've gone there, there's nowhere else to go. What's left? Dumping gasoline on yourself in the public square and lighting it off?"

I would be happy to market the TV rights to that. From your lips to Gaia's ears!

Marti said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Speaking of the Sun, the sunspots are back. At least, that's what I read in the paper yesterday.

Original Mike said...

Has the term "Global Warming" been removed from the list of approved terms? I didn't get the memo.

Sloanasaurus said...

Wow. don't let the swinging door of science, knowledge and fact hit you in your supersitious ass.

One reason there isn't concensus is that there a few of you "I know.." types floating around in a protective bubble of total ignorance and as you should well realize, that bubble of silliness you ride around in is no protection when you fall of the edge of the flat earth.


What's funny about the global warming scam is how much of an absence of reason it requires to believe. The warmists claim that they are the ones upholding reason and science, when in reality, global warming is not science at all - it is a theory made up of many small scientific experiments. None of it can be proven, therefore it requires faith to believe.

Global warming theory today is little different than a priest in the middle ages connecting the plague to immoral behavior - i.e. people are acting immoral and there is a plague. Thus the plague must be occurring because of the immoral behavior.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Wow. don't let the swinging door of science, knowledge and fact hit you in your supersitious ass.

If hdhouse would hold his breath for oh, 20 minutes you'd see the ice caps thicken and glaciers would be advancing down to the Mason Dixon line.

traditionalguy said...

Hd...How are you? have you been outside lately? The global cooling going on for 10 years is the edge of the world we are all falling off of as we speak. And neither visions of warming caused by pure and healthy CO2's rising levels, nor the actual cooling happening while those CO2 levels are going up has any effect in this physical world. The fact that you're claiming Science disagrees with me is evidence of a propaganda coup d'etat that is being used by the Democrats to railroad us into poverty for us and wealth for their Obama-Aristocracy. Think it over.

hawkeyedjb said...

"I wants me one of those new green jobs. Do you get a uniform?"

You get a shovel. It involves walking behind a horse.

Big Mike said...

@hawkeye, I surely hope not. Horses produce methane, and CH4 is much worse as a greenhouse gas than C02.

The giveaway that global warming is junk science was the appeal to consensus. Let's see, have there ever been any scientific consensuses (consensi?) that have been wrong? Like perhaps the consensus that negroes are intellectually inferior to white people? Like the consensus that black men can't play basketball well? (Mr. Rupp, may I introduce you to Mr. Michael Jordan and young Mr. LeBron James?)

AJ Lynch said...

Hawkeyedjb:

Good one!

Blacksmith industry & others will make a come back.

It might be neat to own a stagecoach company.

Jim said...

Original Mike -

" I didn't get the memo."

Evidently you weren't on the "GlobalWarmingErrCoolingErrChangeErrNeverMind" mailing list.

Check your email. Maybe you forgot to click the confirmation link.

Jim said...

MM -

"Speaking of the Sun, the sunspots are back. At least, that's what I read in the paper yesterday."

I saw that too which means we're in for some unseasonably warm weather when the effect hits Earth (I'm sure what the time lag is or if there is a significant one.).

My first thought was: oh great, that's going to cause the "global warming" crowd to come out of the woodwork to claim they were right all along!

Original Mike said...

No, really, is there some move afoot to rename this issue?

AJ Lynch said...

It must be invigorating to sit through a NY Times Editorial Stylebook meeting where they decide "global warming" will now be called "climate change" or "illegal immigrant" will now be called "undocumented worker".

I bet you can feel the power in the air.

Jim said...

Original Mike -

"No, really, is there some move afoot to rename this issue?"

Yes. They first renamed global warming to "climate change" when the global temperatures started dropping exactly when the computer models which "proved" it existed showed that temperatures should be spiking.

Then they decided that "climate change" wasn't sufficiently scary enough, and besides - climates change, duh. That's what they do.

So now they hired a PR firm to "rebrand" their movement.

So now it's like the New Coke version of the global warming crowd.

KLDAVIS said...

AJ, they are merely mimicking the custom of their beloved French, who have done this all along. They even banned the word 'e-mail' in favor of courrier électronique.

Original Mike said...

Thanks for the link, Jim.

But I doubt they actually concede the claim that temperatures are cooling. Do they?

John Lynch said...

The sunspots are returning, so expect the planet to start getting warmer again. it's been cold the last 2 years.

hdhouse said...

some of you guys are rush limbaugh incarnate....huh huh huh its 54 degrees today...guess there is no global warming....huh huh huh....earth looks flat from my studios high above the EIB studios...guess it is...

When some dufuss runs out phrases like "proven lies" (that of course won him a nobel prize) they have a long haul just to get back to zero...or CO2 levels rise and starvation will end...is that a day or two before we die of it or what?

ohhh and secular religion...as opposed to what...religious religion? hey..you prove there is a God sometime...not think or belive..but prove.

Your arguments are factless, baseless, silly and so void of scientific understanding as to make the angels weep.

AJ Lynch said...

KLdavis:

Courrier electronique! I like that it and will begin using it once I have learned how to pronounce it.

"Didn't you get my electronique courrier, you filthly dog?" Heh.

Richard Fagin said...

Bruce:

I've never been shy about being a "denier." If the climate change crowd were serious about anything other than a government takeover of the entire U.S. ecomonmy they would unequivocally support new nuclear electric generation, and fast! There is no good reason to waste natural gas on electric power generation. The only reason the economics of nuclear electric generation are unfavorable is that you can't get a plant approved for construction within a realistic time period.

I refuse to take climate change enthusiasts seriously until they fully embrace replacing all our combustion-powered electric generation with nuclear power. They still can't give me the name of a person who's been injured or even made ill, let alone be killed by nuclear electric power generation.

You're damn straight I don't trust those guys.

Original Mike said...

If the climate change crowd were serious about anything other than a government takeover of the entire U.S. ecomonmy they would unequivocally support new nuclear electric generation, and fast!

Well, now there's an indisputable fact.

Big Mike said...

Poor hd. He fell asleep in grade school science class and never recovered.

The entire global warming puffery started with a mathematical model that allegedly matched global temperatures to rises in CO2 levels. But correlation is not causation.

So (1) is warming caused by CO2 or does warming cause CO2 levels to rise? There is evidence -- scientific evidence -- that the second is the case. (2) Has the model continued to work since it was first promulgated? Here the evidence is unequivocal -- it hasn't. Temperatures have fallen slightly in the past decade, while CO2 continues to rise. The model that does explain global temperatures correlates solar energy output with temperature.

And (3) the earth has been considerably warmer than it is now (not to mention considerably cooler). We believe that considerably cooler is not good but warmer may not be all bad -- what if Montana had two growing seasons? Would that be bad? What if Al Gore could swim year-round in his in-ground pool without needing to heat it?

Jim said...

hd -

"Your arguments are factless, baseless, silly and so void of scientific understanding as to make the angels weep."

Tell you what. You show me an a computer model that asserts that global warming exists, is accurate for the past at any randomly chosen date, and can accurately predict temperatures at any point in the future. Then you can tell me about your so-called "scientific understanding."

I'll save you a whole bunch of time: you can't, because no such animal exists. You're the one who is ignoring the science. Go back and look at the links I provided and tell me in even one instance that I named where I was wrong on the science.

Since you and I both know you can't, then your "science" falls the second you "test your hypothesis." Learn a little Scientific Method before you come to debate something which you have bought as an article of faith without understanding a bit of propagandistic lies which are feeding it. The global warming skipped straight from hypothesis to "Communicate your results" without ever doing any of the steps in between. That's not science. That's just propaganda.

More scientists have signed the petition saying that global warming is bunk than ever signed the one that said it existed. So even if you are going with "consensus view" model, you fail there too.

Really. Your little temper tantrum aside, you're way out of your league here.

Joe said...

It's worse than that. The computer modelers make believe CO2 has magical qualities it simply doesn't have and was proved to not have almost 150 years ago (when a scientist showed that the earth's atmosphere is not, in fact, like a greenhouse at all.)

AST said...

Assuming that CO2 emissions are as big a problem as Al Gore thinks, the answer cannot be reversing the industrial revolution. But that seems to be the only one the environites are willing to accept.

Every time someone comes up with a solution, such as building nuclear power plants, they oppose it. That's why they're radicals. They tout windmills as renewable power, but wind turbines require connection to the electric grid, entailing miles of new high tension lines, not to mention service roads, and we have no specifics about the long term cost and dependability.

When global warming was first mentioned, I read a letter by one scientist who said we would just have to pour a few hundred thousand tons of iron into the ocean which would fertilize phytoplankton and cause them to suck up extra CO2 which they incorporate in their skeletons. They then die off and sink to the bottom which is where limestone comes from. Why aren't the En crowd pushing for research on this?

What this really tells us is that the media and green pressure groups have pushed all these countries into a corner there's no way out of, unless we all start telling them to take their money and eat it.

Jim said...

Original Mike -

"But I doubt they actually concede the claim that temperatures are cooling. Do they?"

Yes and no. What they do is "cook" their studies showing rising sea temperatures, etc. by intentionally leaving off cold spots - such as the entire country of Canada. The problem for them is that when you include the missing data, there has been no rise in sea temperatures.

If you're not embezzling money, you don't need to cook the books. So while they won't come out and say "Hey, we were wrong" because that would destroy their credibility completely; the way they conduct their "studies" is proof that they know exactly what the truth is.

Jim said...

AST -

"Every time someone comes up with a solution, such as building nuclear power plants, they oppose it. "

That's because this whole "movement" has never been about the environment...ever...not a single day.

This is about communism. They want to punish rich countries for being rich by handicapping them with bogus cap-and-trade schemes that bleed wealth.

There's a term for it: it's called being a "watermelon" because they hide the red (communism) on the inside by being green (environmentalist) on the outside.

It's the new tactic of the Left. Once the Soviet Union fell, they needed a new way to push their views on the world. Obviously no country on the planet is going to voluntarily go communist when capitalism is working quite well for them. So you have to cripple capitalism by attacking the engines that make it run.

By..oh...I don't know...

- Bankrupt the banks that are financing it to make bad loans to people who can't repay them (Gosh. That sounds strikingly familiar to me. Where have I heard about someone doing that? Give me a minute....)
- Over-regulate and unionize the manufacturing base so that it either winds up in the hands of the workers (auto industry, anyone?) or goes away entirely (anyone heard much from the American steel industry lately?).
- Create barriers to free trade (does the term "fair trade" mean anything to anyone here?)

Do I really have to continue to cite more examples?

If you're seeing a pattern here and can figure out which political party in this country might consistently be behind these sorts of policies and which party has both the Socialist and Communist Parties as part of their "overall" coalition, then maybe this whole "global warming" hoax is starting to come into focus for you...

MadisonMan said...

When global warming was first mentioned, I read a letter by one scientist who said we would just have to pour a few hundred thousand tons of iron into the ocean which would fertilize phytoplankton and cause them to suck up extra CO2 which they incorporate in their skeletons.

It may have been a letter from John Martin -- depending on when you first heard global warming mentioned -- He's been dead for a while now. The Iron Hypothesis has been field tested (Ironex I and Ironex II) and one could fertilize the oceans in this way to create a huge carbon sink. The difficulty is in knowing how this would change the ocean. It would be a difficult egg to unscramble if unexpected undesirable results occurred.

Re: Sunspots

My first thought was: oh great, that's going to cause the "global warming" crowd to come out of the woodwork to claim they were right all along!

Depending on how warm it gets. But wouldn't it be evidence -- if it gets very warm (on a par with, say, 1998) -- that change is afoot?

f1b0nacc1 said...

I particularly enjoyed HD's attempt to defend Gore by using the traditional appeal to authority ("it won him the Nobel Prize") by ignoring that Gore won a PEACE Prize...you know, the same thing that they have given to (among others) Yassir Arafat.

Oligonicella said...

Original Mike -

"What's left? Dumping gasoline on yourself in the public square and lighting it off?"

Oh please, please, please, please.

hdhouse --

The entire reason we've seen the shifting of the names for the current boogieman is that they cannot back up their mouths and models with facts and predictions. They know they're full of shit. We know they're full of shit.


Olig - bitch slapping the Global Warming/Climate Change myth since it began.

Jim said...

MM -

"But wouldn't it be evidence -- if it gets very warm (on a par with, say, 1998) -- that change is afoot?"

Yes it would. But it's proof that man isn't responsible for the warming. It's that great fireball in the sky: the sun.

If you look at the graphs of solar variation versus global temperatures, there is an almost exact correlation between the two.

You don't have to jimmy with the results, just overlay the charts. When you actually do science, it's a very simple explanation: and in accord with Occam's Razor, it also comports with common sense.

Which makes more sense from a purely empirical standpoint? That man, who is but a speck on the millenial time scale of the planet, is suddenly responsible for the great global climate; or that the sun is, as it has been since this planet was created?

It is the hubris of man to think that we are that powerful. A single volcano spews more pollutants and "greenhouse gases" in a single eruption than man can create in a year of industry. But according to the geniuses who are propounding this ridiculous "theory," volcanoes aren't the problem...we are.

There's an argument to be made that we should protect our environment because it makes our planet a nice place to live. No one likes breathing smog after all. But that's not a "crisis" that demands action RIGHT NOW is it?

Issob Morocco said...

Like the great one he is, Obama will come down firmly on both sides of the issue. A great spoof would be for a sketch to show him debating himself.

Jim said...

Issob -

"A great spoof would be for a sketch to show him debating himself."

But who would play the strawmen that he is so fond of constructing?

AJ Lynch said...

I bet their hysteria over global warming will land the Democrat party in the minority for 30-40 years.

Wandering lost in a veritable political desert will be poetic justice for those who cried wolf.

Paul said...

Jim sez:

"It's the new tactic of the Left. Once the Soviet Union fell, they needed a new way to push their views on the world. Obviously no country on the planet is going to voluntarily go communist when capitalism is working quite well for them. So you have to cripple capitalism by attacking the engines that make it run"

This is true, but it's even more clever in a sinister way that that.

Marxists always claimed that socialism would provide a higher standard of living for the masses than capitalism due to the elimination of waste and hoarding by profiteers. They claimed this right up until the fall of the Soviet Union, when a peek behind the curtain proved that they were in fact wrong.

Enter global warming theory and the need to lower our standard of living in order to "save the planet"! Pretty clever, eh? How else are you going to get people to voluntarily become poorer? The realization that socialism results in a lower standard of living requires that said lower standard of living must be sold as a positive. AGW and radical environmentalism has been concocted precisely for that reason.

It's all about forcing socialism on the masses, whether they like it or not. Whether it's good for them or not.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Your arguments are factless, baseless, silly and so void of scientific understanding as to make the angels weep.

Translation:

"You're mother was a hamster and you're father smelled of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!!"

Jim said...

Hoosier -

But you still haven't answered the question about the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow...

knox said...

Liberals love Man-Made Global Warming, and/or "Climate Change" because every solution that's ever been proposed is a liberal's wet dream: heavy regulations on business, and taxes on everything and everyone. That's why most have zero interest in nuclear power, or any other practical solution. It has nothing to do with the real goal of the movement.

The myths of Man-Made Global Warming (and/or Climate Change) are the keys to the kingdom: that's why they try to shame the rest of us into just swallowing it all.

Jim said...

AJ Lynch -

"I bet their hysteria over global warming will land the Democrat party in the minority for 30-40 years."

Unfortunately there will never be any shortage of those who will willingly believe such nonsense. Stalin called them "useful idiots."

Our education system doesn't teach critical thinking, and the number of children in whom it is instilled by their parents is small. Higher education is dominated by lemmings who are too full of themselves to ever realize that they've been led by the nose all their adult lives, so they willingly pass on the same tired dogma thinking that they are actually imparting knowledge.

It would be nice to believe that there will ever be an end to the lies of Leftism, but it will always find a way to resurrect itself in a different form as soon as you defeat it in its previous incarnation.

The best you can do is be vigilant against such pseudo-science and the social-engineering and teach your children to think critically for themselves no matter what their professors tell them.

John Stodder said...

It's all about forcing socialism on the masses, whether they like it or not. Whether it's good for them or not.

You don't think any of the climate change concern is sincere? It's all meant to scare people into form of socialism that empowers government planners?

Under this theory, who are the real schemers and who are the useful idiots? Where would you put Gore, for example, or James Hansen? And while the idea that a consensus of scientists exists is an exaggeration, there are quite a few who do think it's real and a problem. Are they dupes? Are they whores? Or are they just dumb scientists who can't read a chart?

I'm serious here. If GW is a hoax, it's about as massive of a crime as one could conceive. How are these people acting in concert? Who's giving the orders? Why have there been so few defectors, none of them prominent enough to garner attention from the media? Do all the GW activists know how they're going to benefit from the new regime? What, in your view, is the real story and how is it playing out?

AJ Lynch said...

Jim:

In normal times, you are 100% correct.

These are not normal times. Most people are anxious and many are getting angry. They will demand pragmatic, sensible solutions to our problems. Which will lead to a bigtime purge of incumbents and the believers in religions like Global Warming. [I hope I am right].

mariner said...

The sunspot cycle has historically been about 11 years, minimum-to-minimum. If we're just emerging from a minimum, the maximum should be ~2020.

(And then The Year 2525 will be right around the corner.)

Big Mike said...

@John, on the surface you are offering reasonable questions, but certainly some of them have answers that you may find uncomfortable.

Hansen, for instance. He has been caught fudging data to fit the GW hypothesis. More than once. If he wasn't a political appointee whose views are congenial to the current President, he'd be cashiered by now. I'd like to think his day of reckoning is coming.

Why are there so few defectors? There aren't "so few." They are numerous and some of them quite prominent as climate researchers or in closely-related fields. Why haven't you heard from them? Because the MSM doesn't give them a voice. A large group of them took out a full page ad in the Washington Post several weeks ago trying to point out that the CO2model hasn't fit the real world data for years.

Do all the GW activists know how they're going to benefit? Well, some are merely dupes who find it convenient to go along to get along. Others have discovered that any research program that expresses skepticism of GW doesn't get funded, so their support is essentially coerced. Still others see an opportunity to restructure the US economy along utiopian lines, so they go along with the fraud for convenience sake. Al Gore may fall into this camp, or he may simply be a media whore who's made a great deal of money by pushing GW.

I really don't know if there's a single individual or group of individuals orchestrating this fraud. But I know which party has found it convenient to push. I can only speculate why.

Jim said...

John -

You don't think any of the climate change concern is sincere?

I think that there is probably some number of people who sincerely believe it; they are mistaken, but I don't necessarily believe they're "in on it" or that they are necessarily bad people with bad intentions.

It's all meant to scare people into form of socialism that empowers government planners?

Yes, subject to the caveats and explanations that I give to your other questions.

Under this theory, who are the real schemers and who are the useful idiots?

The real schemers are people like Waxman, Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc. They are the ones who are using the "crisis" to push the end political goal.

I believe that that there are scientists who have convinced themselves that the planet is in peril, but they've allowed themselves to be used by Leftists with an agenda.

Where would you put Gore, for example, or James Hansen?

Both are frauds, so I would put them in the "schemer" category. Hansen is an attention-seeking fraud. Gore is a money-seeking fraud. Both know that global warming doesn't exist, but if either of them ever actually admitted it both of their careers would be over.

They both play a significant part in the "shaming" process which attempts to silence dissent in order to perpetuate the fraud and further their own ends.


Are they dupes? Are they whores?

Or are they just dumb scientists who can't read a chart?

Some are dupes. Some are outright whores. But most of them are "dumb scientists who can't read a chart." It's reminiscent of the 3 Blind Men and an elephant, each feeling a different part of the body and declaring authoritatively that the elephant is something other than it is. It's not that each one per se is wrong in his perceptions, but that none of them has the ability to step back and look at animal as a whole. For example, if you are a sincere scientist that has studied your region and you find that temperatures in your area have risen, you might jump to the conclusion that this is a global phenemenon because you have no idea that somewhere it just got colder. It doesn't make you part of a conspiracy in any way, just overconfident in your ability to see the whole picture. And nobody here knows any academic who thinks that they could possibly be wrong, right?

Jim said...

contd.

How are these people acting in concert?

The vast majority of science across the globe is paid for by government grants. If you want to keep getting grants, then you have to have a problem that government needs to solve. Why else would government continue to pay for it? What government is going to fund a study that shows it is too big? Not a single one: it's not in their self-interest.

So what you get is that the scientists who proclaim there is a problem get all the grant money, while those who say there is none have to shuffle off to the private sector to do something else because no one will pay them.

It's kind of a self-selecting process. The alarmists get money; the realists don't. So other people who want to stay in the field find some new angle to get in on the alarmist payday. Next thing you know, it seems like all the people in the field are saying the same thing because they're the only ones who can afford to stay in the field.

Who's giving the orders?

I don't believe there's any person giving orders. What you have is a bunch of self-selecting scientists (as described above) whose work is being used by Leftists who are taking advantage of these people to create a crisis in which they can institute their pet policies. Think about how many of the countries that are pushing for "immediate action" on global warming are run by Leftists, and you'll see what I mean.

Why have there been so few defectors, none of them prominent enough to garner attention from the media?

There have been prominent defectors. There are over 700 prominent scientists who have signed on to the 'global warming is bunk' petition. Have you ever heard the media report on it? Have you ever heard the media report, in other than a mocking tone, on any dissent from global warming theory? It's the official position of the Democratic Party, and we all know how the media reacts once the DNC issues its marching orders.

Jim said...

contd.

Do all the GW activists know how they're going to benefit from the new regime?

In a government-controlled economy, there are two classes of people: those who control, and those who are controlled. It is the self-deluded fantasy of every Leftist that they will be one of the controllers and that all those "other" people will be the ones that are controlled. Witness our own Leftist friends on this board: they believe that they will be in that upper echelon, despite the obvious reality that - if you are here posting on this blog - you are not ever going to be one of the "chosen ones." But such is the delusion of power that entices them to the ideology.

What, in your view, is the real story and how is it playing out?

The real story is that is a very pivotal moment, much like the Reagan presidency was a pivotal moment in the battle against Leftism in its previous incarnation. Its why the media gave up any pretense of objectivity in the last election and why the Leftists have gone after Palin in such a vicious and unrelenting fashion. In poker parlance, they have gone "all in" on the Obama presidency and Democratic control of Congress. If cap-and-trade and a public-option healthcare option get passed, then - in a very real sense - the battle for the soul of America may well be over. It's exceedingly difficult to roll these things back once they're instituted: and the Leftists know this. Cap-and-trade will destroy American industry and single-payer healthcare will make every American a government dependent in perpetuity. It's a very dangerous time for this country, and why it is so important to do everything possible to keep it from happening.

Hoosier Daddy said...

John Stodder askedI'm serious here. If GW is a hoax, it's about as massive of a crime as one could conceive. How are these people acting in concert? Who's giving the orders? Why have there been so few defectors, none of them prominent enough to garner attention from the media?


John, Big Mike and Jim I think covered it pretty good but I wanted to throw my two cents in. I don't believe it's some kind of conspiracy with any one or cabal of leaders giving orders. I think Al Gore started what I call a cult for lack of a better term. Think about it. He sounds damn near like a televangelist when he gets on this issue and he stands to make billions off of it. I think there are a whole lot of others who are doing the same thing who see dollar signs to made.

Face it, you actually have people believing in people like Bennie Hinn and will gladly send $5 or $500 to that 1-900 number for thier prayer cloth or holy bead.

Why so few defectors? That's easy too. People who even question AGW are labeled as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and now Al Gore himself is compairing global warming as the equivalent of the Nazi threat. Just wait, by next year they'll be calling skeptics racists.

Yes I believe in climate change. It changes all the time as evidenced by the fact that I live where a glacier used to be. I don't believe my SUV is going to cause Manhatten being underwater. I don't believe we can cut our carbon output by 80% unless we want to go back to the Medieval standard of living or develop fusion power in the next few decades.

Jim said...

I hope my last multi-part post came out coherently. I answered the questions out of order as I was composing it, but hopefully it presents a coherent picture overall.

Jim said...

AJ -

"[I hope I am right]."

I'd like to believe you're right too, unfortunately I think I'm too much of a realist to believe that's it's going to happen.

But believe me, if it does, I'll be the first one to buy everyone here a round to celebrate.

NKVD said...

Wow, hdhouse slept through all of his "education". He actually used the made up word "dufuss". Boy, you just get more and more stupid as time passes.

And he really "belives" that he is making a contribution to this blog. What a guy. Keep typing, hdhouse - you are pathetic, but you are stupid.

knox said...

There is a hell of a lot of grant money to be had. I am guessing that not much of it has been directed to "debunking" Global Warming in the last 15 years. We are talking about what is supposed to be The End of Times. It has enormous political and media momentum behind it. Al Gore won an Oscar for crissakes.

Scientists are human. Many work in universities. The prevailing "wisdom" is that if you question Global Warming, or that it is caused solely by humans, you are a Denier. A Flat Earther. An Idiot.

Anyone comes at me with that much vitriol, that much rhetoric... well, I am automatically going to have a lot of questions.

AJ Lynch said...

John Stodder:
I can't speak for the scientists.

For the general public, it is curious that a big majority (I thin 80%) of liberal leaning people believe in GW. It's like a litmus test to determine if you are a liberal and joins the other litmus measures such as profit is evil, there is no govt waste, sorry I am unable to answer with a simple yes or no, corporations are evil, schools don't have enough money, health care is a basic right, Faux News is evil, bazillionaires like Rupert Murdoch are evil but Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Soros are A-OK.

Get my point? No one can explain it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There is a hell of a lot of grant money to be had.

knox nails it right there. Follow the benjamins.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But you still haven't answered the question about the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow...


African or European?

garage mahal said...

Fascinating theories. But how did all our Marxist Overlords manage to heat the planet to make look like the planet is heating? [So they can control us all and enact their socialist wet dream policies]. Again, fascinating.....all those scientists around the globe with their little thermometers taking readings....all for not!

Jim said...

garage -

"But how did all our Marxist Overlords manage to heat the planet to make look like the planet is heating?"

You may not realize hunkered down in your cave, but there is this object in the sky that makes it bright and warm on a summer day. It's called the sun....Go outside once in a while and experience it. Or at least look it up so as to avoid making yourself look even more foolish.

Jim said...

DBQ -

Huh? I… I don’t know that.

AAaaaaaah!

::gets thrown over::

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think Al Gore started what I call a cult for lack of a better term.

Well, after you've defeated Manbearpig,what's left to tackle?

Al Gore is getting filthy rich off of the carbon trading scheme along with a lot of other people. What do they care if the science is true or not? They know they will make a lot of money and THAT'S all that counts for them.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And if Jeremey were here, I would have to say.....

I fart in his general direction.

For those who think we have gone crazy..here worth owing on DVD.

AJ Lynch said...

What is your favorite color?

Blue ...no red...aaaaahhhh

Maguro said...

I'm serious here. If GW is a hoax, it's about as massive of a crime as one could conceive. How are these people acting in concert?.

Desire to conform...the herd mentality. The theory of "perpetually rising housing prices" was a hoax too and millions staked their fortunes on it, including some pretty smart bankers.

Humans have a powerful urge to go with the flow and it affects scientists just as much as financial types. They're not immune from groupthink just because they have lab coats and fancy degrees.

Paul said...

John's questions were well answered by Jim already but I have one for John.

Is it merely a coincidence that the AGW theory came into prominence just after the left lost it's rallying point and momentum after the fall of the Soviet Union?

And once again Garage Mahal goes for the title of stupidest commenter. If our Marxist overlords were able to heat the planet they wouldn't have allowed the COOLING of the last decade to take place. It's almost like a bit of karmic justice that just when the cries of impending global catastrophe become most shrill the planet decides to cool down a bit. Kind of like the "Gore effect" of unseasonably cold temperatures doggedly following Al Gore around whenever he gives a speech.

bagoh20 said...

Maguro,

That's a very apt analogy, since in both cases it is the deadly combo of:

1) Herd mentality
2) Easy money to be made by agreeing
3) Government encouragement and support.

knox said...

Just continuing my thoughts here...

The "consensus" on Global Warming exists for the same reason there is such a monolithically Liberal perspective in the entertainment industry, academia, and in the mainstream media.

This state of affairs does not require a conspiracy or a master plan; just a slight majority of powerful Liberals who have no tolerance for opposing views. Do not underestimate how difficult it is to be the one person at the dinner party who disagrees... that guy who supports Bush... or worse, Palin! Or that freakshow who hiinted he isn't fully committed to the belief that humans are to blame for climate change.

None of this even brings into account how much money is to be lost if you make your political views known to the wrong people. Your livelihood can be at stake.

Just look at how few conservatives there are in academia, in entertainment, and in the media, and you have your proof that there is--not a conspiracy--but a hell of a lot of meanspiritedness, pettiness, and intolerance on the Left for people who do not conform.

Just read the comments here whenever GW or CC comes up. Nearly everyone on the left is in full YOU ARE A DENIER!! mode.

The sad thing is, there really are a lot of problems in the realm of "Energy" that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, we can't even come close to an intelligent debate, because the entire issue has been co-opted by shrill, extremist, leftist environmentalists. Do I need to add "dishonest"?

Sorry, just wanted to get that out there.

Jim said...

knox -

I think what you're saying (and others have said as well) about the herd mentality and pressure by Leftists to conform to the groupthink is extremely important and cannot be emphasized enough.

There's a reason that certain Leftists here automatically turn up the volume to eleven (!!!11!!) in almost every post. It's an attempt at intimidation - much like the way they have gone after Palin but on a smaller scale. They think that if they shout loud enough, make a personal enough attack or are disruptive enough then you'll just go away and leave them standing alone as the only voice in the room.

Imagine working in a field which is dominated by people like this, who hold the power to make or break your career, or who sneer with obvious disgust every time you walk into a room.

Welcome to the majority of academia - including the sciences. Welcome to the government at every level - including K-12 public schools. Welcome to the media. Welcome to any number of career fields.

They can brook no dissension because only in the absence of a determined opposition can their failed policies be implemented. They fear debate because a skilled opponent can make their entire ideology fall down like a house of cards.

As others have noted, you can always tell when Leftists are arguing without substance to their argument because they inevitably fall back on some form of "most people think so too" or some kind of ad hominem rather than provide a real answer to a real critique.

It doesn't take any real work to see how this applies to the global warming hoax, but it is also true of almost all Leftist policies:

Change welfare? Racist!
Change social security? You hate old people!
Cut taxes? You hate poor people!

and so the story goes...

Here's a hint: the more you're insulted in an argument with a Leftist the closer you're hitting to the bone. That's not the time to back off: it's time to press the issue further.

Crimso said...

"Higher education is dominated by lemmings who are too full of themselves to ever realize that they've been led by the nose all their adult lives, so they willingly pass on the same tired dogma thinking that they are actually imparting knowledge."

Some of us aren't lemmings at all. We're just plain dumb. Ask Jeremy.

Paul said...

Saul Allinsky's Rules for Radicals:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

garage mahal said...

And once again Garage Mahal goes for the title of stupidest commenter. If our Marxist overlords were able to heat the planet they wouldn't have allowed the COOLING of the last decade to take place.

Can't be as stupid you. If you could read a simple graph a fifth grader could, you could plainly see that 2008 is between the 7th and 10th warmest record ever recorded. But cooler than the previous 5 yrs!

Bush, Palin, and Limbaugh have dumbed you guys down so far I don't think there is any hope of ever bringing you back.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Bush, Palin, and Limbaugh have dumbed you guys down so far I don't think there is any hope of ever bringing you back.

Damn right garage! I mean those dumbasses have no idea that we'll correct global warming with windmills while the Chinese and Indians keep building coal plants and the Iranians have their nuke plants.

Power to the Goddess of Wind! She will cure the planet's fever!

rhhardin said...

Carbon footprint in Ohio.

rhhardin said...

Global warming is, scientifically speaking, a management career track.

Reduce government spending and global warming would disappear.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Can't be as stupid you. If you could read a simple graph a fifth grader could,

You know garage I just thought of something when you said this. If the Democrats in Florida were smarter than your average 5th grader, they would have been able to figure out the Democratic designed butterfly ballot and we would all have been spared the 8 years of Dubya.

See you Democrats can screw up a one car parade.
:-)

Jim said...

garage -

There is none so blind as those who will not see. Compare your temperature graph against solar variations.

CO2 was heading up, there should have been no cooler years. By your own theory, you can't explain it. Unless, of course, you're wrong. You never have once questioned what your Leftist betters have told you. You have never once thought "What if they're wrong?" If you had, you wouldn't be here repeating these inanities over and over again.

But you claim the people who disagree with you are the ones were dumbed down? Groupthink much lately?

Paul said...

Garage you stupid ass even the graphs at that NASA site (the same NASA that has temp stations by jet runways and AC exhausts, has been caught flubbing data, is committed to AGW theory, and is led by the wackjob James Hansen) shows that after peaking in 1998 temps have dropped and 2009 so far has the biggest drop yet. Meanwhile CO2 levels have increased.

Temperatures decrease while CO2 levels increase....

Got that you imbecile?

Plus there's this.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth

Jim said...

garage -

Let's just go here and read the last paragraph:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.


Get that? The chief propagandist of the whole AGW myth has been forced to admit that it was solar variation that caused climate change in the past.

You still want to be the last man to die for a lost cause, or are you willing to admit that you've been had yet?

mariner said...

John Stodder:
I'm serious here. If GW is a hoax, it's about as massive of a crime as one could conceive. How are these people acting in concert? Who's giving the orders?


As in so many other things, follow the money.

Who benefits from mandatory CF light bulbs? Who makes money when solar panels are sold? Who profits from sales of windmills?

I suspect there are just a few companies with patents on the technologies behind all those products (who don't have basic patents on things like nuclear reactors).

GE perhaps?

Paul said...

"You still want to be the last man to die for a lost cause, or are you willing to admit that you've been had yet?"

These people's egos are so invested in their feelings of moral and intellectual superiority that they will NEVER admit to being wrong. It is a narcissistic culture through and through where self image is everything.

It is a shame culture, as opposed to a guilt culture which is the norm for traditional Americans.

Jim said...

mariner -

"GE perhaps?"

GE definitely.

Also, have you seen the ads for GE's "healthymagination" that have been showing of late? And who do you think the lead provider is going to be when ObamaCare digitizes medical records? How many billions of dollars a year is that going to be worth to GE?

Now for the million-dollar question:

Which network is notoriously in the tank for Obama and the Democrats?

MSNBC...

and guess who owns MSNBC?

GE

Yeah...GE is buying what could be the biggest single contract ever awarded in American government history by giving Obama and the Democrats full control over MSNBC.

Welcome to Big Brother...

garage mahal said...

"Here, read this wingnut website algorelied.com, he'll tell ya all about it!"

Have fun in the wilderness jerking off to Sarah Palin while the real world passes you by....

Jim said...

garage -

"Have fun in the wilderness jerking off to Sarah Palin while the real world passes you by...."

The only relationship you have to the real world is distant at best. You really aren't the one to be talking about the real world passing anyone else by.

Even in the face of a NASA study - you know those same guys you got the graph from? - you still refuse to admit reality. How many pages into the DSM do you think I'll have to delve to find a disorder that fits your behavioral patterns?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You guys are really ganging up on poor garage. Have pity the only things in his garage are a Yugo and a 1971 Pinto with Firestone 500's.

garage mahal said...

Jim
Sorry, Alex Jones, supreme wingnut and One World Truther and conspiracy theorist who shouts at clouds with bullhorns doesn't count as a climate authority. WTF

garage mahal said...

Have pity the only things in his garage are a Yugo and a 1971 Pinto with Firestone 500's.

98 Mercedes E430 V-8 4.3L
94 Mercedes 500SEL V-8 5.0L
04 Acura MDX V-6 4.0L (wife's)

Wrong again!

Jim said...

garage -

Then Google the NASA study yourself. The point wasn't the website, I just hit the first link with the NASA study.

You're trying to play games to avoid admitting the obvious: you were wrong. NASA itself says you were wrong.

Whatever. If you want to pretend the truth is something other than it is, you're welcome to it. I tried, but if you insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself then that's your choice to make.

Jim said...

"98 Mercedes E430 V-8 4.3L
94 Mercedes 500SEL V-8 5.0L
04 Acura MDX V-6 4.0L (wife's)"

Not exactly "environmentally aware" choices in transportation. Not one, but 2 V-8's?

For a "true believer" in AGW, you're being awfully irresponsible. AGW for thee, but not for me, eh?

Shaky Barnes said...

What's the big deal? My emissions fell 80% once I got through adolescence.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

98 Mercedes E430 V-8 4.3L
94 Mercedes 500SEL V-8 5.0L
04 Acura MDX V-6 4.0L (wife's

OMG you are killing the planet!!!

You have a 15 year old Mercedes. I hope you have a mechanic on retainer.

You spend more on tune -ups than I spend on mortgage payments.


You would be better off with the Pinto

Paul said...

Hey garage, who are YOU jerking off to these days, is it still Hillary, or is it Obama now.

Either way, jerking off to Sarah Palin seems a lot more appealing.

So I guess I can add degenerate to stupid in your description.

garage mahal said...

OMG you are killing the planet!!!

You have a 13 year old Mercedes. I hope you have a mechanic on retainer.

You spend more on tune -ups than I spend on mortgage payments.


If I wasn't driving them someone else would be. The SEL is indeed a gas hog though, right around 12-14mpg which I drive sparingly. My friend owns a auto repair/restoration shop here and he does all the maintenance, and it's alot less than you might think. Never buy a Mercedes without service records and yiu should be fine. I had a 86 300E that I sold with 287k on it just because I don't have any more room - the same cars they use as taxis in Germany where a million miles isn't unheard of. My wife doesn't understand the Mercedes fetish and I really don't expect anyone else too either. I just love them.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My wife doesn't understand the Mercedes fetish and I really don't expect anyone else too either. I just love them.

Oh...I do get it. One of my dream cars is a 1973 Mercedes 450SL Convertible when they still had the small bumpers. I love the dippety removable hard top. They aren't expensive to buy, and get pretty good gas mileage but are a bitch to find parts and repair.

One of my friends/clients is a mechanic as well, and is helping in the restoration of my 1971 K5 Blazer. Awesome with the top off and playing cool retro tunes from the CD player. We're taking her to Hot August Nites this year.

You now have to admit that your "garage" fixation is completely incompatible with your professed global warming beliefs. Give it up.

knox said...

garage has a gas guzzler??

LOL! Just like every other person who cares deeply about GW.

Immediate suspension of self-righteous privileges on this subject until further notice.

Kirk Parker said...

MM,

"But wouldn't it be evidence ... that change is afoot?"

Huh? Change is always afoot! The really preposterous notions put forth by the AGW crowd are the assertions that:

1. Climate is static, and

2. The climate we had just a few days/years/decades ago was the "right" one.

NKVD said...

garage drives a gas guzzler and thinks "alot" is a word. Liberals - self righteous and illiterate.

MadisonMan said...

My point was that a return to very warm temperatures -- if it happens -- might suggest that any warming related to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have been temporarily masked by (somewhat predictable) solar variability.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I would really appreciate it if someone who thinks we need to cool the planet would let the rest of the class know what the optimal temperature is for Mother Earth.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Lets see, garage drives two gas guzzling cars that he adores but thinks the rest of us great unwashed have to reduce our carbon emissions.

Good one garage. Thanks for finally showing us what an unabashed hypocrite you really are.

garage mahal said...

Oh...I do get it. One of my dream cars is a 1973 Mercedes 450SL Convertible when they still had the small bumpers. I love the dippety removable hard top. They aren't expensive to buy, and get pretty good gas mileage but are a bitch to find parts and repair.
.

PJ O'Rourke had a quote about women, a Mercedes 450sl, and sexual arousal ;) I'm sure restoring one that's been sitting for years would cost some money, I see them all the time on Craiglist. Whatever the cost it's worth it. I still scan Craigslist, Autotrader, and ebay every week even though I live in the burbs and I don't have any room for another one. It's a sickness. So go ahead and call me a hypocrite if you want, but I never tell anyone what they should drive and I don't buy new vehicles.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So go ahead and call me a hypocrite if you want, but I never tell anyone what they should drive and I don't buy new vehicles.


Well then I hope Obama gets his way on cutting all those nasty emissions. It will be worth it to see you having to give up your precious Mercedes and stuffing your butt in a Smartcar. Because we have to save the planet from global warming right?

Right?

garage mahal said...

When and where did Obama tell me I have to give up any of my Mercedes?

AJ Lynch said...

I have heard a theory that we may be affecting the climate by extracting vast amounts of oil in some parts of the world.

That transfer of enormous weight may be altering the earth's spin. Hence it is getting warmer in some areas but not others.

That is as reasonable guess as the GW zealots.

Or maybe it is due to all the sports we play in the last 100 years. Bouncing millions of balls off the earth may be causing GW oh so sorry I meant to say Climate Change.

Hoosier Daddy said...

When and where did Obama tell me I have to give up any of my Mercedes?

You're right garage he didn't. I think he said there would be a Mercedes exemption for garage mahal in his mandate for all cars to get 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Original Mike said...

Jim - I want to thank you for your eloquent answers. Thanks for your time. I’m an AGW agnostic. I’m not a climatologist, but I am a physical scientist so I’ve got a pretty good handle on the complexity of the question. That’s why I look with great skepticism at the lock step certitude of people who couldn’t differentiate y = x ({cough} journalists {cough}). And I look with fear at people in power who think we can cut emissions by 80% in 40 years (or who are happy to claim we can for their own personal gain). I’m always looking for more info on this topic. Your analysis of who benefits from AGW is enlightening. And as a scientist on the grant writing treadmill, I can attest that if you buck conventional wisdom you lose your lab and all the people you are supporting lose their jobs. It’s a big price to pay.

Darrell said...

Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer "did not mince words, calling the movement to promote man-made global warming fears a “climate change cult” and noted that “zealots” promoting climate fears “are actually extremely ignorant.” Like Althouse commenter Jeremy. (OK, I added that part.)

"Many people don't realize that over geological time, we're really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that's unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it's been quite higher than that,”

Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.”


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1852/Princeton-Physicist--The-idea-that-Congress-can-stop-climate-change-is-just-hilarious--Warns-of-climate-change-cult

Hoosier Daddy said...

Every time I see Al Gore pontificating on AGW I recall this memorable scene from Ghostbusters because it fits just so perfectly.

Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!

Dr. Peter Venkman: But the kids love us!

knox said...

So go ahead and call me a hypocrite if you want, but I never tell anyone what they should drive and I don't buy new vehicles.

That's an easy way out. You've ridiculed people who question GW. You seem to believe in it quite sincerely ...and yet you continue to drive a major carbon-emitter? That's just weird. How is that not worse than any of us who doubt the "consensus"?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what you drive. It's your side who does. And your Mercedes is only one of many things that will go bye-bye if they have their way.

Original Mike said...

But I have to say that this speculation from Madison Man:

My point was that a return to very warm temperatures -- if it happens -- might suggest that any warming related to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have been temporarily masked by (somewhat predictable) solar variability..

is certainly consistent with the data. If temperatures are rising due to CO2, you wouldn't expect them to rise monotonically.

I'm agnostic on AGW. But I'm firmly opposed to returning to the dark ages whether or not we're warming the planet. It's been said before. If we're in the crisis the environs say we are, we need an aggressive program of building nuclear power plants. If they don't back that; if they continue to push the pipe dream that wind/solar will allow 80% reductions in emissions in 40 years, then they are either, a) not really serious (e.g. they're in it for personal gain), or, b) they are dumb fucks (e.g. they have no clue what's possible engineering-wise and no clue to what will happen to the economy). I'm sure both species exist within the movement. I suspect the dumb fuck crowd is in the majority.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That's an easy way out. You've ridiculed people who question GW. You seem to believe in it quite sincerely ...and yet you continue to drive a major carbon-emitter? That's just weird. How is that not worse than any of us who doubt the "consensus"?

You know I like to mess with garage, its cathartic. But I like you stand in awe at how the complete cognitive dissonance displayed here. AGW real. Carbon emmissions bad for Earth. Now please excuse me while I drive my
V8 to the store. I think the only other time I saw such lunacy was a No Drilling in Anwar bumpersticker adorned on a Suburban.

Original Mike said...

If I wasn't driving them someone else would be..

Talk about denial. Jesus. I must say my respect for garage mahal has gone down a couple notches.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Talk about denial. Jesus. I must say my respect for garage mahal has gone down a couple notches.

It's not denial its flat out liberal hypocrisy. Its no different than Al Gore living in a mansion, profiting off a nickle mine and jet setting around the world in his private jet while telling the rest of us great unwashed to STFU and start thinking about the planet and reduce our carbon footprint.

Big Mike said...

@garage, I followed your link and read it through. The first thing I note is the four out five of the references in the biblio are "Hansen, J," and for queries contact "James Hansen."

But Hansen has already been shown, repeatedly, to have fudged data in favor of GW, so why should a person trying to determine the truth, vice spouting talking points from the conventional wisdom, pay any attention to this study? I would no more pay attention to that study than I would to The Bell Curve, for instance.

So what do we have here? You argue in favor of GW, pointing to a publication from a person already shown to have engaged in junk science to bolster your argument. Meanwhile you, personally, drive emissions-belching motor vehicles.

You remind me of ardent environmentalists who casually pitch their soda cans into the trash in lieu of walking ten or twenty steps to the recycling bin.

Let me know when you've sold your cars and bought a hybrid.

garage mahal said...

Talk about denial. Jesus. I must say my respect for garage mahal has gone down a couple notches..

The only thing I recall arguing is whether is earth is warming or not, nothing else. I've never told anyone what they should drive or even what steps we should take about global warming. Ever. Forget the strawmen from Hoosier, what's wrong with my logic that if I wasn't driving that 15 yr old Mercedes, someone else will?

@garage, I followed your link and read it through. The first thing I note is the four out five of the references in the biblio are "Hansen, J," and for queries contact "James Hansen.".

Ok, give me your temperature collection data then from whomever you trust. What does it show?

Jim said...

MM -

"My point was that a return to very warm temperatures -- if it happens -- might suggest that any warming related to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have been temporarily masked by (somewhat predictable) solar variability."

I get where you're going with this; however, as witnessed by garage's reaction to this thread, the AGW crowd refuses to even accept the possibility that anything other than AGW is responsible for warming temperatures. Given that it requires a complete denial of reality to believe that, any claim to performing "science" gets thrown right out the window.

If, as I think you're asserting that - if AGW exists - then it would lead to both higher lows and highs in temperature graphs. The problem is twofold:

1) In order to test that hypothesis, AGW claimants would have to first admit that something other than CO2 levels drive global temperatures. Without that, any data they have which claims to show AGW is pure bunk.

2) The entire concept of significant AGW goes away. Even the most ardent AGW claimants don't claim huge changes in the earth's climate over the next 100 years. It is their position that minute changes will cause a magnified effect on the climate. But if solar-variation is factored out of their models, how much of a warming effect is even left?

Thinking purely empirically, my guess is that if you start from the AGW crowd's most pessimistic estimates and then subtract all effects of solar variation, then what you're going to see - if anything - infintessimally small changes over the relatively short time frame of a couple hundred years.

Remove from that small amount the effects of variability in volcanic activity, the effects of variability in Earth's orbit around the Sun, etc., and then you're talking about practically nothing at all.

Here's another thing to think about: the best environmentalism in the world is better technology and higher standards of living. Compare how much a smokestack belched in 1978 versus today. Or a car's emissions. Simply the march of time and man's ingenuity will change our "carbon footprint" even without some kind of hoax-induced panic.

As people gain more wealth, they demand nicer and cleaner places to live. By addressing Third World poverty we can do far more for the environment than unilaterally taxing our economy into oblivion.

As Original Mike said, if the real agenda was improving the environment then "environmentalists" would be screaming for nuclear energy. They would also be at the forefront of economic and political reform in the Third World. When was the last time you saw Al Gore or anyone else from the "environmental" movement even address the issue, let alone do something about it?

If the environment were my top priority, here would be my action list:

1) build tons of micro-reactors all around this country
2) Allow drilling here in this country: we have strict regulations regarding environmental impact, so if you want it done the most safely and with minimum impact, then the world would be best served by obtaining it from the cleanest and safest sources rather than the dirtiest.

Jim said...

contd.


[It also would have the effect of depriving a number of tyrannical regimes of their primary cash flow which would aid in my goal of political reform across the globe.]

3) Rather than issuing blank check foreign aid to countries, get on the ground-level and issue micro-loans to the populace directly. Again, placing economic power in the hands of the people rather than the ruling class not only raises standards of living, but aids in political reform efforts.

4) Form a League of Democracies as a supplement to the UN. If you want to belong, then you have to institute a democratic form of government. Withdraw funding from the UN and pour it into the new league. Deny funding to any regime without a democratic mandate. Without the US, the UN is a meaningless institution and eventually the only members left would be autocratic regimes and its role would inevitably diminish as a result. There would be stronger human rights enforcement, which again, helps in political reform across the globe.

5) Both overtly and covertly support democracy movements across the globe. Simply redirecting our current foreign aid expenditures toward the afore-mentioned micro-loans and democracy support programs, we would see a significantly different world 20 years on.

If you undertook these 5 items, then people will take better care of their local environment because they want to, not because they're forced to. The answer to any possible AGW isn't less wealth: it's more.

But their policy goals don't include any of these steps because they don't care about the environment. They don't believe in AGW any more than I do. As Glenn Reynolds so often says:

"I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it is start acting like it."

Hoosier Daddy said...

The only thing I recall arguing is whether is earth is warming or not, nothing else. I've never told anyone what they should drive or even what steps we should take about global warming. Ever. Forget the strawmen from Hoosier, what's wrong with my logic that if I wasn't driving that 15 yr old Mercedes, someone else will?

Ok garage, I'm sorry about setting up said strawmen. Evidently I falsely assumed that your strenuous support of AGW naturally coincided with your desire to save the planet.

Can I then assume that you're just one of those guys who believe in AGW but that we can't do anything about AGW therefore there is nothing wrong with me driving a V8 gas guzzler.

garage mahal said...

Ok garage, I'm sorry about setting up said strawmen. Evidently I falsely assumed that your strenuous support of AGW naturally coincided with your desire to save the planet..

I never even claimed humans were causing it! Just the denial of thermometer readings I think is just whacky.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

When and where did Obama tell me I have to give up any of my Mercedes?

It will happen when it is no longer possible for you to register/smog/license your beloved older Mercedes. Think it won't happen? Just take a look at the draconian laws in California.

SO......Obama isn't going to take your car away from you....just your ability to actually use it for something other than yard art or a doorstop.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I never even claimed humans were causing it! Just the denial of thermometer readings I think is just whacky

Oh well fine then we're in agreement.

Now the world will be ending.

In seriousness garage, I think few dispute that the climate changes, the globe warms then cools. The dispute is that a) we're causing it and b) we can prevent it and set the planet's baraometer to whatever the optimal temerpature Al Gore thinks it should be but hasn't told the rest of us.

Jim said...

dbq -

"Just take a look at the draconian laws in California."

I don't know what ever became of it, but I know that just a month or so ago there was a propoal to ban black cars in California in order to save the energy required to cool them down in summer.

And these are the people that garage is certain won't try to take his gas guzzlers away?

Talk about having your blinders on...

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't know what ever became of it, but I know that just a month or so ago there was a propoal to ban black cars in California in order to save the energy required to cool them down in summer.

Good Lord. I'm surprised Sharpton wasn't down there screaming racism.

Original Mike said...

what's wrong with my logic that if I wasn't driving that 15 yr old Mercedes, someone else will?.

Denial was a poor choice of words. But there is a word for "I believe driving this car is harming the planet but I'm going to do it anyway." That word is: selfish. And there's also a word for the logic you employ above: rationalization.

Big Mike said...

I never even claimed humans were causing it! Just the denial of thermometer readings I think is just whacky.

Well, garage, you could go down to Antarctica to check the thermometers there -- right about now is a good time. ;-)

The "anthropogenic" in "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) means precisely that humans are causing it. If you don't believe that then you should logically join the rest of us in telling Al Gore to STFU, because if the global warming that has occurred since early in the past century is not caused by humans but primarily by the sun and by eccentricities in the earth's orbit, then the thing to do is adapt. Humans are primates; we adapt well and will.

While I'm commenting, I'd like to repeat something I've said before. Precisely who is supposed to decide what the "ideal" climate is? Going back to the cartographic chart at the link you provided earlier in this thread, most of the warming seems to be be concentrated in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere -- is that necessarily bad? Or is it merely different from what we're used to?

BTW, it has not escaped my notice that the particular cartographic projection used in that chart badly overstates the areas where warming is believed to occur because it implies greater areas in the upper latitudes than is real. (I use the weasel-worded "believed to occur" because these are areas where temperature recording is apt to be pretty hard to do and thus perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt.)

All of this is separate and apart from the question of whether we should consider making greater use of renewable resources. The wind will blow whether we harness it or not, radioactive elements will decay and release heat whether we tap into that energy source or not, and the sun will shine whether we install photovoltaic cells or not. We should do that wherever it makes sense. But tearing apart the American economy because of AGW? Makes no sense at all.

Original Mike said...

I never even claimed humans were causing it!.

If you don't think humans are causing it, then you're not a hypocrite. So the question of whether you are or are not a hypocrite rests upon whether you think we are or are not causing a temperature rise.

So what do you believe?

hdhouse said...

Jim said...
"More scientists have signed the petition saying that global warming is bunk than ever signed the one that said it existed. So even if you are going with "consensus view" model, you fail there too."

I'll take 1 good over 40 bad and that is what the issue gets to when you say "I've got more guys" which is what you have there.

"Really. Your little temper tantrum aside, you're way out of your league here."

I don't think putting your league down so much will help your argument. True I play in a different league and in science certainly not on your level but don't feel bad about where you are...you can learn some...just open up your mind a bit...try Jimmy try....don't get foiled into being a sillygoose.

Oh and all the other goop you wrote...sad.

Jim said...

hdhouse -

"I'll take 1 good over 40 bad and that is what the issue gets to when you say "I've got more guys" which is what you have there."

Really? Because this is exactly that you and the AGW cultists have been using for years to browbeat people asking for actual data and computer models. "Shut up, it's a consensus." "Look how many scientists we have." "Holocaust-deniers" blah blah blah

Now all of a sudden you don't think science by consensus is such a good idea when the numbers aren't in your favor any more. LOL Talk about situational ethics.

And BTW, I wasn't the one pushing the "consensus" argument, that was a response to your inanity. I provided links to acutal studies, and pointed you to the other thread where I posted even more actual scientific data. All you had to say was "A bunch of scientists agree with me." Now you're arguing against yourself here. You started it. I finished it. Sorry that you struck out again.

"Oh and all the other goop you wrote...sad."

If you need help with the big words, don't be ashamed to ask. I know reading comprehension has never been your strong point...or independent thought...or critical thinking.

You're practically a laugh a minute with this non-defense defense of your position. You have zero answers to the data provided, and you somehow think that being on Al Gore's side automatically gives you the better of the argument. And you have the nerve to say that Palin is stupid?

LOLOLOL

Synova said...

About garage's car...

I thought that it was pretty clear that getting a new car that got better mileage actually had a larger carbon impact than continuing to drive an existing vehicle, even if it got poor mileage.

We should all be driving our old gas guzzlers into the ground. Nothing gets good enough emissions ratings to make up for the cost of its own manufacture.

Makes me think of ethanol. How can it possibly be better to divert (as I just yesterday read in National Geographic) enough corn to feed a person for a year into making the equivalent of one tank of gas when not *only* does the corn require diesel and chemicals to produce, but when it burns it emits carbon and pollutants *anyway*.

hdhouse said...

Jim....what facts did you or have you ever cited. you say people don't agree but you don't say who or how.

Just another peabrained neo-something defending the indefensible. I thought you had something to offer. Obviously a mistake.

Synova said...

Jim,

What was really fun was the time a global warming alarmist tried to explain to me that Freeman Dyson wasn't a *real* scientist... or at least not one that counted!

(To be fair, what I had read from Dyson didn't claim he was a denier, only that in his opinion the "science" involved failed his standards in the most abysmal manner possible.)

Jim said...

hd -

Since you're too lazy to go find it yourself, I'll repost for you:

Here

Here

Here

Those are just a few. Again, I challenge to argue with the science of the arguments. No ad hominems. No BS. If you have an argument with the science, then let's hear it. But if you don't, then I guess it's pretty obvious that you only scorn those who disagree with you because you fear it will interfere with your political goals and not because you have any actual reason to do so.

Jim said...

Synova -

"What was really fun was the time a global warming alarmist tried to explain to me that Freeman Dyson wasn't a *real* scientist"

Isn't it amazing that all of a sudden previously highly respected scientists all of a sudden become "crazed lunatics", "heretic" (my personal favorite because it reveals the pseudo-religious nature of AGW) or "conspiracy theorists" or some such thing the minute they point out that the emperor has no clothes.

That's what happens when you're dealing with a pseudo-religious, political belief rather than a rational, scientific one.