US Senator Jim Inhofe's (R-Oklahoma) family had a little fun last week in DC after the snowstorm, when they built an igloo and put a sign on it, "Al Gore's New Home". In Inhofe's mind, global warming is a liberal plot to wreck the US economy. Look-ee here!
But the weather in the Pacific Northwest and Rockies is wrecking the Inhofe/Limbaugh plot line. In Seattle, the runoff is now forecast to be about 74 percent of the 30-year average, and the lowest since 2001. In northern Utah, "The Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI) is currently at 28 percent of normal, meaning 72 percent of years had more water available." In Vancouver, BC, the US Senate's Global Whiner could experience global warming first hand. The biggest change in world records at the Winter Olympic Games is the warm weather.
The El Nino cyclical weather pattern is being blamed for this winter's unusual weather patterns. But climatologists have long contended that global warming woud add extreme variability to 'normal' climate patterns; including the odd winter rains in South Florida. I'm sure that Limbaugh, Palm Beach's most famous pill popper, knows that. It takes a lot of drugs to make you believe global warming is a conspiracy theory, don'cha think?
14 comments:
How deep up your arse do you have to be to think like this?
Dylan Ratigan did a pretty good take-down of this longstanding Drudgian concept.
So you pick one location to make your point? Since 1880, all the science they can muster tells us the temperature has gone up 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit worldwide.
How well do you trust recording equipment from the 1800s?
Global warming, and the Greening of the world is an economic engine. You can't find a segment of the economy that isn't trying to cash in.
What happened to the "New Ice Age" predicted by scientists in the 70s?
m
Check out this blog:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
It's author, Roger Pielke, Sr., is a renowned climate schientist whose experience in the field pre-dates the establishment of the field itself.
Dr. Pielke has raised significant technical questions regarding the inputs to the climate models used by the IPCC.
I think it is fair to say that Pielke believes that climate prediction is extremely imprecise. He also seems to believe that CO2 is given excessive focus while other significant human forcings are ignored.
The debate on this topic is only just beginning.
I love that a few idiots commenting online know more than 98% of the scientists that agree that man is affecting the world's climate.
Unfortunately 'Global Warming' was a poor choice of a name. Every time it snows people point to that as evidence to the contrary.
Anon-
Why don't you state some facts to support your position, rather than engage in ad hominem attacks?
I guess the emails uncovered by hackers on the website of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit showing gross distortions of data to support the anthropogenic theory of global warming are meaningless an irrlevant? These scientists are the most influential members of the UN's Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. The emails reveal data manipulation, discussion about boycotting scientific journals that allow opposing viewpoints, and even glee at the untimely death of a peer that had the temerity to suggest that anthropogenic global warming was as of yet, scientifically unproven.
The fact that the liberal American press (which can't help itself from beating an unworthy scandal to death) hasn't touched this subject is just more proof that where there's smoke, there's fire.
Lately, the scientific community has even admitted they have not factored a slight change in the earth's axis into the global warming equation. It is an indisputable fact that tiny axis changes have a tremendous, and even possibly chaotic impact on many earth parameters. This admission in and of itself obviates any discussion of anthropogenic global warming until such time as it is factored in.
What say you gimleteye and g.o.d. concerning this scandal? Five minutes on the internet will provide you with all the information necessary to at least make one think about the veracity of the conclusions put forth by these supposedly unbiased and formost authorities on the anthropogenic global warming model.
By the way, here are a couple of links to an article and a scientific paper that discuss the matters I posted above. Sorry for the misspellings; I was typing too fast for myself...david
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Future is what I wrote above, how did that "y" and "m" get in there? Blame it on the blackberry.
David comes along every time global warming is discussed, are you paid to surf the web for climate change David?
The global warming movement is rooted in junk science by corrupt academics. It is laughable that whenever the weather gets very cold or it snows, there are still knucklehead zealots who claim it is because of global warming. It would be just as foolish to blame global cooling if the temperature ever gets hot again.
GOD- This is the first time I have ever commented on this blog or anywhere else concerning global warming. I have posted on issues at Turkey Point, during which I was accused by Gimleteye of being an FPL employee; which I am not.
It seems that any time you or your partner in crime are confronted with intelligent, well informed disagreement, your modus operandi is to disparage the messenger and leave the message alone. In this regard, you fit right in with the crooked politicians you choose to (rightly) excoriate on this blog.
I am open minded about global warming. My point was the very scientists whose opinions and "findings" have served as the basis for "indisputable" and "overwhelming" evidence of a catastophy in progress have been shown to be colored by their bias towards a predetermined conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.
This precludes and averts their "scientific conclusions" categorically until real scientists prove otherwise.
"Nough said"...david
Isn't it odd that every time, everywhere, whether here or at the NYT, there is a piece on "global warming" or climate change, there are a horde of commenters who purport to demonstrate how the scientific community is somehow "wrong" because someone got a page citation wrong.
It's almost as if they were, I dunno, organized or something.
Sparky;
This is not about an "incorrect page citation". It's about scientists whose data is the basis for the veracity of the anthropogenic theory for global warming manipulating their data to support their theory.
Not only that, but the evidence of this data manipulation comes from emails between these scientists. It's in their own words, not what someone heard or made up.
This means their theory is based on dishonest data and science, which is no science at all.
I'm not saying global warming isn't real; it may or may not be. Even if it is, proving it is anthropogenic is another matter entirely.
This is the crux of the matter since if it can be demonstrated that we are warming, and the warming is anthropogenic, we the earth people are going to expend billions (if not trillions of dollars) from a continuously dwindling resource pool to correct the situation.
Conversely, if we are not warming, or the warming is not anthropogenic, we will end up burning billions or trillions for nothing.
That's why it's important to have data and scientific integrity around this subject prior to expending resources that are becoming dearer and dearer. There are tremendous opposing financial interests depending on which way this works out.
We could spend a ton of money on "what if's", but that is not the responsible thing to do in this circumstance or any other. Their should be a coordinated global effort with proper oversight and scientific/data integrity with a date certain completion target to settle this issue and determine appropriate action, if required. Only then will we stop people from crying wolf on the basis of a late night howl.
I guess a discussion about facts is out of the question.
Post a Comment