Today's Seattle Times: "Global warming: They're not laughing at Ron Sims now"
The first time Ron Sims tried to set up a county office to study the effects of global warming, he was mocked ... Now county executive, Sims has set up a climate-response planning team -- and no one is laughing.I guess I'll have to be the one to step up to the plate. At this writing, the current weather report for Seattle says 62°F, with a forecast high of 64°. That is quite a bit cooler than the 75° historic average daily high for July 12.
I know, today might be an outlier. But it is easy to laugh at people who make serious pronouncements about "global warming" on days which are significantly cooler than the historic average.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 12, 2006 12:05 PM | Email ThisStefan, your statistical prowess is simply astounding.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on July 12, 2006 12:16 PMThanks for the insight, pseudotsuga. Have you thought of a career in mathematics?
Posted by: Ben Diamond on July 12, 2006 12:27 PMAll that said however, WHY BUILD A BELOW SEA-LEVEL TUNNEL on the Seattle WATERFRONT? Why spend billions of dollars extra to do this? Not just based on global warming, but on the Boston Big Dig disaster.
The Boston Big Dig has proved fatal without an earthquake. By contrast, no one has died on the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct, despite two good sized earthquakes and several smaller ones.
Would the Boston Big Dig Tunnel have collapsed in a 6.8 earthquake, like we had on 02/28/2001? Wouldn't that kill a lot more people than if the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct collapses in an earthquake? At least the upper deck people would survive and many lower deck people could be rescued from the present contraption.
And what about rising sea levels making the tunnel completely useless? Or tsumani flooding -- fill the tunnel with water, and you will have nearly 100% fatalities, compared with only a large percentage dying from a structural collapse of a viaduct.
Let's give global warming some benefit of the doubt, and scrap the tunnel.
By the way -- if AlGore's theory is correct, there really isn't much we can do about it. But I will save that for another post.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 12, 2006 12:47 PMWhat a bunch of hogwash!
Posted by: Jeffro on July 12, 2006 01:05 PMIf it's cold, it's Global Warming. If it's warm, It's Global Warming. If Michelle Wie doesn't make the cut this week, it's Global Warming. GET IT STRAIGHT!
Posted by: Editor on July 12, 2006 01:08 PMFor a long time progressives tried more concrete implementations of statism and Marxism. And they still want to get their hands into your wallet with universal healthcare, more welfare programs, headstart education programs, etc. but the problem is that with any concrete program, there will also be concrete data to reflect the efficacy of the program. As we all know, the legacy of statist programs is that they fail again and again. They are simply not sustainable, and so in failure, the Progressives and their political proxies, the Democrats, have continued to lose power and mindshare.
Enter Al Gore and the Global Warming hysteria. If you can't convince them with mundane programs, scare them with fantastic futuristic doomsday scenarios and slick Hollywood produced presentations. That's the strategy and the goal is always the same, to implement the Progressive, statist, Marxist agenda.
But Gore will fail on this front as well. Because time matters. If I tell you that your house will be flooded tomorrow, that is a crisis for you. But, if I tell you that the porperty where your house is will gradually succumb to rising sea levels over the next 100 to 500 years, that's a whole different and lesser level of action needed on your part. Time matters, and even if the doomsday scenario models are 100% correct in their worst case predictions, it will take many years for the worst to occur. Sea levels do not rise drastically over night, it is impossible. Plenty of time to take action and raise houses, build levees, sell property, etc. So, the average person is less concerned. And if Al Gore's fantasy hysteria forecast is anything less than his doomsday worst case predictions, he comes off in the next five years as a discredited crackpot, further damaging the Progressive movement. Based on real science, and simple probablility, Gore's placing a very long bet. And Sims is dumb enough to blindly jump on the bandwagon.
All we have to do is give these Progressives more rope, they will hang themselves.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 12, 2006 01:16 PMtypical liberal political administration--focus on big things like no nukes, not asking immigrant status, and global warming--all of which YOU can't be personally liable for on a local level to voters, and distract focus on what you did NOT accomplish locally, like voting reform, streets, roads, potholes, homeless bums, graffitti, etc etc; this is the waving of the hand by the magician to distract those who focus on the real actions;
In 1900 New York they predicted that the US would be covered in horse dung a mile deep by the year 2000 at the then present growth rate of horse-drawn vehicles. Really scary stuff. Maybe Sims does know what he's doing!!
Posted by: dan on July 12, 2006 01:23 PMHave you considered starting back on your meds and changing out of your pajamas?
Nothing is too stupid for drooling AlGorean liberal mushheads like Sims to defend.
Do you hate science, have no reasoning or critical thinking ability whatsoever, and have
absolutely no aptitude for science?
Become an environmentalist.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 12, 2006 01:32 PMPosted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 12, 2006 01:37 PM
You might want to try jumping off of the Aurora Bridge to test the Newton's theory of gravity, while you're at it.
Posted by: Facts have a liberal bias on July 12, 2006 01:43 PMHas anyone else ran into this?
Mindless lemming idiots.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 12, 2006 01:44 PMI think you need to exagerate less and dig a bit more. You need to track the funding for these scientific studies, determine whether the science is unbiased, i.e. blind studies, etc. Are they comparing apples to apples? There was recently an article stating that the worlds premium wine growing regions will dissappear...this study was complete hogwash and unscientific, regardless, it was published as scientific fact in the Seattle papers.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 12, 2006 01:52 PMWhy they come up with these make-work kooky things and don't think it's offensive is amazing.
Posted by: Misty on July 12, 2006 01:54 PMSorry, pal, but all of that work has already been done, hence the near unanimity of the scientific community. Oddly enough, the few scientists who support the postion taken by the right-wingers who post here happen to be the ones funded by Exxon/Mobil, et al. Gee, what a concidence!
God is going to be very mad at you people for your poor stewardship of his planet...
Posted by: Facts have a liberal bias on July 12, 2006 01:56 PMfacts? why bother when you have the religion of republican politics. geez, its a cool day. that must mean global warming is a joke. great powers of logic.
ron sims is a joke. don't confuse the idiot with the issue.
by the way, your national republican party to whom you all swear mental and emotional fealty has increased federal spending by 45% since 2001 (of which "defense" and homeland "lack of" security account for only 1/3). i know you all don't believe in numbers or facts, but it seems that the republicans have finally displaced the dems as IRRESPONSIBLE WITH TAX DOLLARS.
so much for small govt.
Posted by: dinesh on July 12, 2006 01:59 PMI assume then "Facts" that you have given up driving and air travel.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 02:01 PMI say that no number of TASK FORCE PLANNING TEAMS
will have any impact whatsoever on the weather but they will have a chilling effect on your wallet.
I'm no expert, but "the work has already been done"?! That's good science! We've concluded all of the possible test, climate models, etc and determined that we have all the hard facts, no need to retest, re-evaluate...
Oprah claims to be feeling the warming as well, that's as conclusive as anything I need!
It is a fact that most climate research is not collected blindly and therefore it is compromised.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 12, 2006 02:06 PMJimmie, Misty, all y'all, it's nice to know that there are some of us that aren't drinking the koolade and maintain a sense of humor among all of these miserable, doomsday preachers.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 12, 2006 02:15 PMPerhaps they missed the meeting that discussed things like this:
--------
Only a small minority of scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the predicted consequences. [bold added]
The term 'global warming' is a specific case of the more general term 'climate change' (which can also refer to 'global cooling', such as occurs during ice ages). In principle, 'global warming' is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, 'global warming' generally implies a human influence. However, the UNFCCC uses 'climate change' for human-caused change, and 'climate variability' for other changes [3]. Some organizations use the term 'anthropogenic climate change' for human-induced changes.
-------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
-------
Sure, it's from wikipedia, which is not scientific or peer reviewed, but it is accurate enough to indicate that you are over-simplifying the stance of many conservatives in your ideological zeal to paint them as idiots or worse.
You might want to try jumping off of the Aurora Bridge to test the Newton's theory of gravity, while you're at it.
Perhaps rather than use snarky analogies, you could explain how "facts" have any kind of bias at all.
Amazing. It's a theory that explains everything. Could it be that Holy Grail Of Science that has eluded us for so long, the Universal Theory Of Everything? No matter what happens, Global Warming explains it all. Too bad Albert E. isn't around to see his life's dream fulfilled by one Mr. Al Gore.
Then again, maybe it's just junk science.
Posted by: Interested Observer on July 12, 2006 02:23 PMI do believe you've nailed it. The left has such a huge stake in pushing this "global warming" hysteria.
The dirty little secret? They love it!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 02:29 PMWe'd see global cooling which would make the Dark Ages feel like Club Med. Got any answers for that, Facts? Or are you willing to throw millions of dollars at a so-called problem which we have no real control over?
Point is, we face a world-wide, life-extinction threat of global cooling constantly. Yet, nobody talks about that. Well, not since this same crowd (as mentioned above) was whining about it in the 70s.
Well, which is it? Warming or cooling? Or will you get back to us after you've determined this particular scare won't advance your agenda any further than the previous ones?
ps to Dinesh - get back to me when your party is serious about reducing spending, kay? I don't like it either, but spending criticism coming from a Democrat? Hang your hat on another argument.
Posted by: jimg on July 12, 2006 03:06 PMI don't think you're quite getting the hang of it. It's got to be an issue libs care about for it to be the cause. They don't care about you getting cut off (because you should be using mass transit, anyway), or the IRS stealing your money (because you'll just waste it on more CO2 producing gas).
It's got to be something more lefty conscious. Like smoking is banned from ALL public buildings, but teen smoking is rising - It's Global Warming. Costco doesn't think the State should have a monopoly on liquor. Costco's irrational thinking is caused by Global Warming. Younger people are less likely to approve of abortion than the Baby Boomers' gen. - It's Global Warming.
Are you getting it?
Posted by: Editor on July 12, 2006 03:28 PMRight now we are getting this same kind of mail from Jay Inslee but no one is doing half hour specials on his mailings.
I am not a fan of this waste of taxpayer money, that at best ends up in the recycle bin, but when they make these rules an incumbent would be a fool not to take advantage of them because you can be sure that the other guy is.
Posted by: Steven Pyeatt on July 12, 2006 03:34 PMhttp://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ae050/nflb.html
Around 1000 AD the Vikings travelled to Newfoundland because the Earth's climate was warming. Around
1200 AD the Viking travels dropped due to the Earth cooling
In the 1800s the skys of Pittsburgh and other steel towns were just filthy due to the burning of coal
In the 1980s scientists admitted in Time Magazine they lied about the SST destroying the ozone, because the scientists did not want the SST built.
With the clean air act and CAFE standard the emissions of automobiles have dropped and the mpg of cars have incresed.
Unfortuneately Ron Sims and Greg Nickels have chosen to travel in large gas guzzlers
If Sims and Nickels were really serious about improving the quality of the air, they would not support personal property taxes on vehicles, because the $500 tax discourages someone from purchasing a cleaner more fuel efficient vehicle.
In addition both of them would ride the bus (or at a minimum drive low emission vehicles.)
Given Mr Sims failure to properly run an elections department, my gut feel is that he's a poor scientist also
The weather and climate go through cycles and until I see real science that shows there is global warming, I'm not going to pay much attention to the Nostradomus musings of Messingers Sims and Nickels
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on July 12, 2006 03:49 PMThere was also a review of an article that claimed 100% unanimity. A researcher claimed that of over 900 articles submitted to a peer-review scientific magazine, not one of them even talked about the potential of the sun being the primary cause of global warming. The article stated that even Stalin only had 98-99% participation rate in elections.
List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Dinesh - if you look through the budget history, except for defense spending related to the GWOT, most Democrats have complained that the Republicans aren't spending enough on domestic issues. So even if we're spending more, it still isn't enough.
I don't like the unecessary spending that has happended, but I am firmly convinced that Democrats would have spent even more.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 12, 2006 04:07 PMWell, if you look at the last 100,000 years , the current 'warming trend' is an anomaly.
So, perhaps pseudodotsuga is on to something? I mean, over the last 100,000 years, 90% of them were typically colder than we have now. Maybe - just maybe - this warming thing is an anomaly?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on July 12, 2006 04:19 PMhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 12, 2006 04:20 PMThey do the same thing with the war on terror. If we try to get information on the bad guys we're infringing on civil rights. If we get attacked again the libs will scream that we didn't do enough.
Imagine how much the libs would spend on "global warming" if they get "their" power back. Ron Sims is already at it
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 04:29 PMBut keep on living in your little right-wing dreamworld, ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a way of life here at Soundpolitics...
Posted by: Facts have a liberal bias on July 12, 2006 04:31 PMBetter than that, he could abdicate!
Posted by: Fed Up on July 12, 2006 04:35 PMYes, the current warming trend is an "anomaly" in that it is difficult to explain when compared to hundreds of thousands of years of data. That is what raises red flags for scientists who can't explain global warming- if there's any debate it's over the amount to which it's an unexplained climatological "anomaly" or a man-made "anomaly" caused by industrialization. Given the quick spike in CO2 levels, the second scenario is more likely.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on July 12, 2006 04:35 PMThat's a reasonable and tempered statement and it illustrates why I consider the "Man-made Global Warming" adherents to be painfully similar to the "Intelligent Design" theorists. Both camps take a phenomenon that is difficult to explain and formulate an (unproven) explanation which they promote with religious zeal.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 12, 2006 04:42 PMSomehow, in your self absorbed la la land, the baby boomers have been able to overcome the earth-in their own nacarrististic minds only...........
Grow up.......
Posted by: Hank on July 12, 2006 04:44 PMeveryone is an expert these days, but some folks just have a hard time seeing what is right in front of their noses.
stefan: comparing adherents of intelligent design, which is a political movement designed to undermine the concept of science and introduce judaeo christian religion into public education, to people who are concerned about global climate change, which is being studied and accepted by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, is disingenous. but hey, anything to advance the cause. facts are sometimes malleable, eh?
Posted by: dinesh on July 12, 2006 04:58 PMDid you manage to read the celebrated treatise that indicated half of scientific conclusions are ultimately proven false?
The fact that prosperity reduces pollution is abhorent to you looney liberals, in that prosperity reduces victimhood-the lifeblood of liberalism.
Pollution is a product of command/control economies VS prosperity, which can afford to spend money on altruistic issues, beyond day to day survival, such as environmental concerns.
China will go the way of the USSR-Levi's and rock'n'roll trashed the USSR, and will do so to China, and way sooner than you can contemplate.
Such a shame that you superior intellects rely on creating victims, and are mortally afraid of prosperity, which creates critical thinkers. Critical thinkers abhor victomhood.....
Loser.......
No one is calling for Al Gore to be burned at the stake like Gallileo. What we are calling for is a restraint in commiting billions of taxpayer dollars to a less than fully understood scientific phenomenon with little or no immediate danger.
The degree to which we respond to any threat should be directly related to a strong understanding of how to correct the threat and the timeline of the threat. It's quite possible that we could spend billions trying to correct a threat we did not understand only to make it worse. Or, only to have all of our investment erased by some natural phenomenon such as a meteor or volcano. Is it worth spending billions for a problem projected for 10 to 50 years out when there is a very good chance of a huge volcanic eruption somewhere on earth in that same 50 years?
What's interesting is the intolerance to any non-believers shown by the denfenders of Global Warming. Any scientist who disagrees even slightly with the conclusions of other scientists is immediately denounced as a propagandist for big oil. Can you imagine if we conducted our scientific research on human health or on technology development in the same manner?
Global Warming is the great new liberal dogma issue because it's impossible to convincingly prove it one way or the other, and especially over the course of the next hundred years. Thus it sets up a great article of leftist faith. Either you believe it, or you are denounced.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 12, 2006 05:18 PMThe point is we live on a dynamic planet. It changes and will continue to do so long after we are gone. One of the best things that can be done for the environment is to encourage technology. Things may not change as quickly as the greenie weenies would like, but things do change in a free society. And if you nutjobs want to keep blaming mankind for causing all of the world's woes, keep in mind the parts of the Alaskan waters "cleaned" after the Valdez oil spill are essentially sterile, but the parts that weren't "cleaned" have plenty of life. Now for you slow thinkers, this does not mean I advocate spilling vast quantities of oil on a regular basis. But we should keep in mind that the good Lord created a remarkable planet for us to live on and learning how everything works together is part of the grand adventure.
For those of you who still aren't convinced (most liberals don't let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions), I would be interested in methods used to provide the data that support your global warming. Stevenson Screens are very limited in scope and it would be just silly to extrapolate that data beyond what is actually measured. And relying strictly on mathematical models is also unwise because that means we have to come up with the equations for the program and that leads to "How to Lie With Statistics".
Posted by: Burdabee on July 12, 2006 05:29 PMExactly! And they're loving every minute of it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 12, 2006 05:30 PMGlobal warmism, environmentalism, anarchism, liberalism, immigrationism, right to votism. Religions all.
Posted by: dan on July 12, 2006 05:40 PMARE YOU AN ENVIRONMENTALIST OR DO YOU WORK FOR A LIVING?
Posted by: lookout-wife on July 12, 2006 05:49 PMI maintain that global warming is happening, the uncertainties are in the severity and *how much* is man-made, not whether humans have had any effect. This is the conclusion of many scientific analyses trying to explain an existing phenomenon, not the brainchild of people trying to defend a piece of mythology in the first few chapters of the Bible as fact (to the detriment of all those wishing to take the Bible seriously for its moral content over its factual content.)
I was disappointed with the Al Gore movie in that it had no disclaimer that he was showing worst-case scenarios, and it spent more time on rising sea levels than the less disputed scenarios of worse periods of drought and worse storms.
Still, to lump together all who think we should have some sort of plan to address global climate change is ludicrous. Whether you "believe" it is purely man-made or not, there has been a warming trend, and I wouldn't denigrate those who would mitigate its effects until you come up with a better plan.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on July 12, 2006 06:18 PMYou will clearly see there are multiple dire fates that could fall upon the planet. Global warming is a red herring when you look at the planet as a whole. This is not the first or last time this planet has gone glacial or desert. (Most of which happened long before we humans are presumed to exist).
Anyone who takes one narrow view of a scientific whole and calls it gospel for the whole, spends money on it, or decries it fixable without understanding the whole is a fool. I for one laugh at Ron loudly and directly.
KC's view of "Science" is to fly over my heavily wooded lot and determine that it's all wetland because the "grass is green in August" and then having to spend $140 to make them come out and declare that it really wasn't wetland at all.
What about the CAO's and the, "best available science" that only looked at one side of the equation. That "best available science" was provided by environmentalist groups direct intervention. How about not listening or responding to any dissenting views, including a 95% + negative reaction from the public affected and the scientific community that opposed the plan?
I am a Republican in my recent voting, (a direct result of Ron Sims' thieving treatment of MY, (NO it's not theft, the Constitutions of this country makes it otherwise) rural land and its devistation to my budget.
I am not religious, and some of my views may differ from some Conservatives here, I prefer to call myself a "Militant Agnostic, I don't know and neither do you!" (Unknown bumper sticker).
I am a much bigger fan of SP than that trash on HA.
Science is not a narrow pursuit.
Posted by: MSRedneck on July 12, 2006 06:21 PMJust as an example, the Seattle Times had an article about the increase in wildfires and quoted a wildfire ecologist (whatever that is) would said she while she didn't have any proof (no surprise there!)she felt that it was due to global warming. This quote was presented in a manner that gave the impression that this gal should have some credibility about global warming. I'm also sure she would be on the list of scientists that supported man-made global warming.
Well, I feel that any significant man-made global warming is a joke and I likely know as much about it as a wildfire ecologist.
So just because someone is a "scientist" doesn't amke them climate experts. I would like to see a list of all these scientist and see how many have expertise in the field.
Posted by: BornRight on July 12, 2006 06:22 PMJust a little more information to try to show that there is not "a nearly unanimous consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans."
When I see science being politicized so heavily, I become very suspicious of absolute statements such as above. How many votes can be scared out of the people if they can be convinced that the world could end in the next 100 years, if drastic action isn't taken now? Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician scaremonger using environmental scare tactics to return Democrats to political power - he was not this vocal when he was VP.
Now Greg Nickles and Ron Sims are trying to politically cash in on what many people (outside of Seattle) believe is dubious science.
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/bren022305.shtml
"Some 19,000 of the world's scientists and experts on climatology have signed declarations saying that rising CO2 levels are mankind's fault is garbage - junk science at its worst, and they insist that all the available evidence proves their contention."
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html:
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/national-academy-fails-global-warming-ref
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05394.cfm
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 12, 2006 06:51 PM"Sixty scientists call on (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper to revisit the science of global warming"
Posted by: RobertJ on July 12, 2006 06:57 PMThank God, he has no say about whether King County signs on to the Kyoto Treaty...
Posted by: KS on July 12, 2006 07:01 PMIt will be better for all of you if you start back on your meds so they might let you change out of your pajamas. Nothing is too stupid for drooling AlGorean liberal mushheads like you guys to defend.
You guys are proof positive liberals feeeeel that enthusiastic prideful superstition is science, the absence of any reasoning or critical thinking ability whatsoever is enviable, and worshipping at the alter of ludicrous liberal faith in nonsense has become an art form.
You lend the model of "invincible ignorance" a whimsical air of solemnity that is at once absurd, hilarious, and in keeping with Al Gore's best ranting and raving lunacy.
For you knuckleheads -- global warming is a coming apocalypse caused by the internal combustion engine (or BW Bush), (or both) -- GREAT! Run away morons . . . run away . . . live in caves . . .
Send me $200.00 each for a set of Al Gore environment fallout shelter plans . . . I know some good contractors . . . Costco has an emergency food supply product . . .
Have no brain . . . become a liberal democrat environmentalist.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Posted by: bartelby on July 12, 2006 08:28 PMThey don't care about defending the country against terrorists but worry about CO2 and ice melting and blame it on humans.
What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Njerald on July 12, 2006 08:36 PMGreat contribution! The "Flat Earth Society" is precisely the mentality of the ammo liberals like Al Gore and Ron Sims use
to support their insane global warming apocalypse nonsense! BTW, not surprised you're a fan. Good job.
"...[I]t is easy to laugh at people who make serious pronouncements about "global warming" on days which are significantly cooler than the historic average."
Are concepts like statistical sampling alien notions here? [Hint to all the true believers: "Scientific Method" ain't just the name of the newest techno band.]
I find it difficult to fathom a remark as obtuse as the one quoted above coming from a remotely educated person.
Am I missing something? If so, please correct me.
My cognitive jaw remains jammed downward and I am curious if anyone can persuade me otherwise.
Please, please share....
I am genuinely interested.
Posted by: bartelby on July 12, 2006 09:03 PMhttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36624
Apparently bartleboob forgot about one of his hero's more ironically pathetic moments ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2006 09:20 PMExcelsior!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2006 09:22 PMSorry, but cranky bloviation ain't fact.
NASA, for starters, amply documents global warming.
Cranks can always say "the jury's still out" on...
The earth is spherical
Evolution occurred
Global warming is happening
I invite you to shake your tiny fists and prove otherwise.
Posted by: bartelby on July 12, 2006 10:02 PMWe know that. Why do you persist in doing it?
"I invite you to shake your tiny fists and prove otherwise."
I've got an invitation for you too bartleboob...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2006 10:15 PMIt is not difficult to fathom a mentality shallow and obtuse enough to miss this . . . it came from Bartelboob.
There is a nearly unanimous consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans that liberals know of. Social psychology is an attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of phenomena. The herd mentality brings insecure people a feeling of strength or safety attributed by some researchers to pure emotional mimicry, fear, loathing, and anxiety. It permits them to indulge in their feeeeelings ignoring anything associated with facts, believing in things that don't exist, and hating anyone that negates the certainty of their silly psychotic mumbo jumbo.
To win, "we must create the illusion of a great impending catastrophe and then become the answer for it." -Al Gore AKA Swami Ponderbiscuit
Nothing new . . . Bartelboob pretends to be educated . . . then proves he will believe anything that has no facts associated with it.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 12, 2006 10:16 PMWe'd like to let him go, but current laws make dismissing an ineffective employee all but impossible.
So, like you, we must put up with his madness. Ignore him and hopefully he'll go away.
Posted by: David Paymer on July 12, 2006 10:32 PMTake a look at at that record from Vostok again. There have been IDENTICAL spikes in the past - with the corresponding increase in CO2 levels.
So, we look at the graph, and we see the spikes are short in duration (meaning global warming is the anomalous situation), and that it has spiked fairly regularly at ~110,000 year intervals. In both temperature AND CO2.
So how is the current situation different? It appears to me - on the larger scale of things - all is as it should be. It appears to me to be a fairly regular cycle, and while man may - MAY - have a very small impact on things, the entire cycle seems natural. Almost all the change would be expected with the shown record.
So how does that mesh with the claim that man is causing climate change? We may be causing a bit of the "jaggies" on the main curve, but the curve itself appears to be a predominantly natural cycle.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on July 12, 2006 11:05 PMI suggest you keep him away from the cubicles -- especially when there are young boys around.
If he continues to wander away, insists on wearing his pajamas to work, refuses to clean under the rims,
steals more TP and tries to re-use the can liners over and over, you can write him up.
If he continues, send him packing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
If you don't know what that means, you shouldn't be spouting off like little Al or Ron. And if you do know what that means, shame on you for using wikipedia as a reference. Oh, wait, you believe Al Gore, so of course you aren't interested in citing solid analytical studies. Stop being a hypocrite and give up all the things your liberal heros cite as causes of global warming.
Farm your own land so you don't have to depend on trucks and trains to bring the food to market, give up all forms of fossil fuel consuming transportation, and don't forget to give away all household items that were made in some evil polluting factory. Something to think about the next time you reach into the silverware drawer, zip up your pants, or agonize over which piece of organic fruit to buy. This stuff doesn't come out of thin air. It's high time you two-faced turkeys either put up or shut up.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 13, 2006 12:48 AMEveryone have a nice day.
Posted by: swassociates on July 13, 2006 07:23 AM"Mother Earth is a MILF" that is hillarious!!!
I apologize for the cooler temps yesterday, I ran my car all day with the AC on and the windows down. I was trying to reverse global warming. It worked.
Posted by: Jeffro on July 13, 2006 08:13 AMI wish I could take credit for it. It comes from the legendary "Iowahawk" Blogger extraordinare.
Posted by: swassociates on July 13, 2006 09:18 AMand you?
Posted by: dinesh on July 13, 2006 09:19 AM1) has its senate leader diagnosing terry schiavo via video and determining that she was not in a persistive vegative state, and then passed legislation and woke up georgie jr. from his nap to enact a law (there's small govt for you!)to intervene in her family's choice of medical care.
2) has denied science the ability to study embryonic stem lines, assisting other countries and their corporations in getting a competative advantage in the area.
please. find some principles, then speak.
we know your mantra. GOD PARTY COUNTRY, in that order.
Posted by: dinesh on July 13, 2006 09:27 AMCan you ever offer anything of substance? Or is it easier to just regurgitate your talking points?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 13, 2006 09:37 AMNo scientific expertise here, just a degree in history and 2/3 of a law degree.
Posted by: Razeeb Hossain on July 13, 2006 10:15 AMYou are right dinesh - there are a few of us who see that it is a complete waste of time to argue with you - what a squander of a good education ;'}
As for calling people names - get over it or go away!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 13, 2006 11:30 AM"i studied microbiology and immunolgy as an undergrad, as well as history and philosophy of science and medicine" . . .
and then i went to the zoo . . . yup . . . i sure did . . . yes i did . . . yup
For someone who has proven in numerous instances here at SP to have no grasp whatsoever on World or American history,
dinesh's prideful "acadmemic standing" is amusing to the extreme.
dinesh spent all of his Berzerkely Cal class time swallowing the liberal canard whole (sans prophylactic).
Thanks dinesh for another unabashed belly laugh.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 13, 2006 11:49 AMyou are the on-line equivalent of a punk with a spray can.
reflecting your general ignorace, berkeley has historically had one of the most conversative faculties--which was certainly the case in the history department. but since you are prone to generalizations, can't seem to think without party talking points, we would expect nothing else.
got anything new names for people you don't like? why don't you share them, since those are the only thoughts of which you seem capable.
oh, by the way, what are the muslims thinking today? what will the stock market do tomorrow?
Posted by: dinesh on July 13, 2006 12:33 PMsee alpha and amused (aren't they one person?).
you are like many other people who post here in that you'll hold me to a standard you won't hold others to. why? because you agree with them.
that's not uncommon in today's partisan environment.
what's sad it that whereas republican used to equate roughly with conservative, that's no longer the case. i adhere to many conservative ideals, i just don't see it in the republican party. here are a few: limited govt, reduced spending, accountability, intelligence.
so challenge deanron and can'twell. they deserve what this site delivers. but let's not kid ourselves about the alternative.
send mcgavick to d.c.--that way he can vote for all the other crap the republicans have foisted on the country. just another rubber stamp on our way to heaven.
Posted by: dinesh on July 13, 2006 12:39 PMI gotta notion that Bill dismissed them because they're just a full of crap as your panties are.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 13, 2006 12:48 PMI guess Burdabee beat me to it... The "peak" of 350 ppm is within historical averages, if you look out beyond 400,000 years. Statistically at the norm. We're not out of line with historical records, either in temperature OR CO2 levels.
Just look at the temperature and CO2 graph - it's hard to argue that we're in a bad period. It looks to me that we're just surfing out the tail end of the latest peak in temperature over the lifecycle of the planet.
So if we are affecting the temperature with our C02 levels, that would mean that our peak would be a degree or so above the last peak. And our dip might not be as bad. We'd still be below what it was 2.5+ million years ago. Actually, looking at that graph it should be abundantly clear we're in the midst of a long-term COOLING cycle! I mean, 4 million years ago the coldest it got was as hot as it gets now...
Perhaps - just perhaps - this global warming/cooling thing is natural, and man really does nothing more than dabble with a few threads at the edges of the huge tapestry that is our climate?
Burdabee,
I used the Wikipedia entry because it tends to be the preferred reference material for many on the Left, because of its bias. But in this case the Vostok data is pretty clear and unambiguous; we're in the latter stages of a heat peak of the world, and the earth will once again plunge into an ice age, only to thaw once again beyond that...:) Not to mention the overall cooling trend of the earth over the last 5 million years! :D
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on July 13, 2006 12:53 PMThe stock market will probably go down. If it does goes down, it's over concern of stability in the Middle East, meaning Hizbollah and Hamas - who started this recent round of violence - are to blame for affecting our markets.
So, do you support the UN - and it's charter and role in the recreation of the historical nation of Israel - or do you support Hamas and Hizbollah and the "Palestine Authority" in their war against Israel and the Western economies?
Kind of a tough one, eh?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on July 13, 2006 12:58 PMNice try at cogency but your comments are still comically semi-literate at best. You ask "what are the muslims [sic] thinking today?" and "what will the stock market do tomorrow?"
As a self proclaimed academic you might have posed rationally cognizable questions, but since you are a simpleton, I will ask them for you.
1.) Why is dinesh still living despite the fact that many radical islamic terrorists have declared their intention to murder him and his family?
ANSWER: Because GW Bush has organized the government and military and stopped radical Islamic terrorists from murdering cowardly morons like dinesh who is too friggin lazy and stupid to defend himself.
2.) Why is the stock market still thriving amidst a dynamic economy with robust growth, rapidly decreasing deficits despite a war, and low unemployment so that it is possible that -- even a moron of the limited abilities of someone like dinesh -- can still be gainfully employed?
ANSWER: Because GW Bush has organized the government so that tax cuts were made possible to stimulate the markets and his national defense policies inspire consumer confidence in American markets. As a result even simpering semi-literate morons like dinesh can still be gainfully employed.
Will you ever say anything intelligent about anything?
I'm trying this a second time just to confirm my belief that it's nearly impossible to get a lefty to respond to a direct question.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 13, 2006 02:18 PMdinesh, why do you bother coming here? You slither in, ask the most insipid questions and make the most inane comments, get your a$$ chewed til you cry like a girl, and then run away...
Don't you feeeeel you'd be much happier at the Pokemon World website?
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 13, 2006 04:18 PMThese guys don't exactly get any points from me for originality.
Your "Leave it to Beaver" reference made me think of my all time favorite Wally quote: "You don't have any rights, Beaver, you're a kid!"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 13, 2006 04:53 PMMaybe he read that well known book--"It takes a Village to Raise an Idiot"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 13, 2006 06:02 PMWhat a hoot - I'm sure you all would have been screaming that the earth is flat in Galileo's day (and, no doubt, calling for him to be burned at the stake as a heretic).
But keep on living in your little right-wing dreamworld, ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a way of life here at Soundpolitics...
Ummmm...Galileo's beef with the church involved the sun-centered vs. the earth-centered argument. It had NOTHING to do with whether or not the earth was flat or a sphere. Moreover, that the bible teaches a flat earth is a MYTH perpetuated by the President of an Ivy League university in the 19th Century (Another example of telling a lie over and over and over again 'till it becomes "fact".) So, are you ignorant, or simply misinformed? In either case, perhaps you should practice what liberals preach and "do some reading" before you spout off about something you know NOTHING about. Thank you.
Posted by: Your Life Is My Fault on July 13, 2006 09:36 PMI'd just like to point to comment# 10 on this thread. As you will see, it appears I correctly assessed the Michelle Wie situation on Wednesday. It came to pass that Miss Wie did not make the cut at the John Deere Classic because she was forced to withdraw due to complications of "heat exhuastion".
Michelle Wie: Newest Sierra Club spokesperson.
Posted by: Editor on July 15, 2006 04:08 PM
