"Kathmandu gets first snowfall in 63 years"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 14, 2007 06:12 PM | Email ThisFrom CBS News: "At the World Bank in Washington, officials have posted some new "help wanted" signs. The bank is looking for a few good specialists (two, to be precise) to focus on adapting to global warming:
[Hey Bemused -- post a link, not the whole article -- Stefan]
Posted by: Bemused on February 14, 2007 06:08 PM
Need some help here, howabout a large list of possible crazy left wing conspiracies that do a disservice to our way of life.
And I am sure most would agree, Stefan is a right wing shill, paid dearly to post propaganda that promotes their interests.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 14, 2007 08:35 PMThe lefties ignore one big fact, there is no climate stasis. As much as you may not want it to, the earth has been warming and cooling since it had a climate. So then the question becomes - how do all of those righteous lefty climate dudes know that this climate, right now, is the just right one? Maybe a few degrees warmer is the right one. Maybe it's not. When the Vikings were growing crops in Iceland I'm sure they thought it was pretty OK then. This I do know. Crops grow a lot better in warm climates than they do in cold. A few reports have read, by calmer better informed minds than the lefty hysterics common today, say that a few degrees of warmth would be a good thing. If nothing else it would mean we could grow more corn to create more smog producing ethanol. And trust me pal we are going to need a lot more land in corn (twice ++) to replace just portion of oil with ethanol. But I digress.
You really need to plug yourself into some more recent facts like: The ice in the interior of Greenland is growing by thousands of tons a year. Also the Antarctic ice cap is also growing. Oops! Guess what now! The ocean is cooling! How'd that happen? You know Unk, all the gloom and doom is really fun. Nothing beats scaring some 10 year old kids in science class. But the simple fact is that climate change isn't the end of the world, and we can't change it, no matter which way it decides to go.
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.
We are asked by the AGW crowd to buy into the political angle - "Because, you know, its better not to take any changes with something that might be THIS important. It the planet after all."
Reminds me of the same argument made about WMD's only 4 years ago. These same loons certainly sang a different tune then about not taking chances with someone as sick as Hussain might sell those weapons to terrorists.
The AGW theory relies on faith as much as any cult I have seen in lifetime. And they appear, at for the time being, to be much more successful than most.
Posted by: deadwood on February 14, 2007 09:36 PM1. ''all of the European glacial mass''.
Been to Switzerland lately ?? Last time I was up to the Jungfrau Saddle above Grindelwald, they had REALLY big glaciers up there.
2. ''all of the North American glacial mass''.
Been up Mt. Rainier lately ??.. Last time I was up to Camp Muir, we had some really big glaciers up there too (and I'll bet my ranch they are still there).
3. ''all of the Greenland icecap'' (it's getting hard not to laugh.....).
Last time I flew over Greenland going to Europe from Seattle, there was a really, REALLY big icecap that covered the entire center of the island about a mile or more deep. I'm REAL SURE that icecap is still there.
I do the tongue-in-cheek thing on the above only to point out a serious corrolary:
Some of the ''science'' that the radical left-wing eco-extremist big-government socialists are pushing about global warming has about the same level of validity as the above by Unkl Witz.
What is truly scary is that so many people who are blissfully ignorant of anything resembling objective science latch on to stuff like this.... And then they vote ((TM) a certain (R) legislator who shall remain nameless for tonight).
SIDEBAR: To perhaps save a moonbat come-back:
I will stipulate that on balance the earth has been getting a little warmer lately.... just like it has many times going back millions of years.
And if it is:
Credits again to Fareed Zakaria, for noting that the most inconvenient truth about global warming is that we can't stop it.
An "inconvenient truth", for sure! Heehee
Posted by: Michele on February 14, 2007 09:39 PMGlobal warming is flawed because there is no basis for crisis. The earth may be warming, but it has warmed in the past many times and the effect of such warming is most likely caused by the sun and occurring at a gradual and easily adaptable rate. There is no cause for alarm, and certainly not for massive wealth redistribution forced on only a select few countries which Marxists don't like.
I'm beginning to realize that Gore is the best thing that ever happened with respect to Global Warming. It's only because of Gore's crazy overreach and massive scare-mongering that we will easily be able to generate the momentum to both discredit him from a scientific angle, but more importantly on political and philosophical grounds.
Lefties, please keep up the hysteria, you will make it very easy for Stefan, and the others of us with a reasoned, and not emotional approach to the world around us.
And Righties, if you are going to make an argument against Global Warming, do so on the rational grounds that dispel Global Warming and not by using illogical and false arguments with straw men, red herrings, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 14, 2007 09:47 PMI am sure most [scientists] would agree, Stefan is a right wing shill, paid dearly to post propaganda that promotes their interestsYou have a low opinion of scientists then, if you're sure they believe a nutty left-wing conspiracy theory that doesn't have a shred of truth to it. Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 14, 2007 10:31 PM
Same tired old argument from Stefan. The moment that Stefan sees a snowflake he finds a refutation of Global Warming. I cannot wait until the summer, though, because Stafan will undoubtedly find plenty of evidence of global warming: "It's hot!"
But I do believe that the following statement is very revealing about the intellectual context of the conservatives at Sound Politics:
> Possible vast left-wing conspiracies: Global Warming, Evolution from monkeys ...
Who would have guessed that these global warming deniers are also creationists?
Well, I have a question for these creationists anti-scientific types: Is the Earth less than 10,000 years old?
Let's argue about this subject rather than spend our time arguing about Stefan the meteorologists weather reports from across the world.
Another question for these creationists: Did God create all of these species which you are driving to extinction?
Time for more of his gloom & doom talk. LOL
When you get on your "global warming" bandwagen you might want to take just a bit of time to do some actual research instead or just reading the drivel written in the newspapers and spouted on the evening news. In point of fact if one looks at the GLOBAL average, the temperature has been going DOWN (very, very slightly but still down) since 1998. That is why most of the loonies are now calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming". Calling it "climate change" allows them to call everything into question and blame it on man - and specifically the US.
For an interesting read from a climatologist try this: http://newsbusters.org/node/10828
Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2007 06:43 AMIs there a documentary out or any other type of visual aids (this is 6th grade) that I can give to their teacher and followup with the school district?
Her teacher never mentioned the whales starving in this area due to changing water currents, fish migration and the need for the animals to adapt. I mentioned this to the daughter to show that this stuff happens all the time.
Posted by: swatter on February 15, 2007 06:51 AMMan-made global warming is a joke.
Last summer I was in Juneau and saw the Mendenhall Glacier.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/mendenhall/
It is absolutely huge. And slowly melting. What I found interesting was that the experts know that this glacier started melting nearly 300 years ago!
Makes it difficult to blame mankind.
Posted by: Shadow on February 15, 2007 07:20 AMThis "climate change" semantic gambit is a doozy. I mean, how can you deny it? Does climate change occur? You're darned tootin' it does. Heck, where I live, it changes on a large-scale basis at least four times each year. On a smaller scale, there are even day to day changes.
But this is typical of leftists. They can't win the agrument on the basis of facts or logic, so just change the words so they suit your side. "Climate change" is just the latest. There havce been others, e.g., "pro-choice" in place of "pro-abortion". Makes it sound better, you see, and how can you be against "choice" (as if "choice" should include the "right" to slaughter innocent lives). So "climate change" is just code for "global warming" in a different dress.
It's IRONIC when Algore flys in a private jet cross country to give a Global Warming speech in the middle of a blizzard, its FUNNY. Just like Baghdad Bob saying there were no Americans in Baghdad when you could hear .50 Cal fire in the background while the CNN had live shots of tanks in Baghdad.
I am not going to repost all the links to all the articles I've linked to before. Mainly because the Global Warming sycophants never, ever rebut, refute or speak to the data in the articles (David?).
Points:
1-Climate is cyclical, just like day to night and seasonal.
2-There are many drivers to climate, and we just don't know all of them.
3-The largest climate drivers are extraterrestrial, solar, earth orbit, earths tilt and lunar orbit. All these factors vary with different periods.
4-We do not understand all the earth based climate drivers, ocean currents, geological activity, etc..
5-We do not yet completely understand how the climate operates, the drivers, the feedback loops, etc..
6-The amount of human contribution is in dispute in the scientific literature.
7-Whether human contribution is significant is in dispute.
8-Those pushing Global Warming have been on the wrong side of every scare issue of the last 50 years: All the birds were dying, the population bomb, global cooling, running out of oil by '90, death of the oceans by '00 they have been wrong every time for the last 50 years.
10-The HOCKEY STICK model is mathematical flawed.
11-Those pushing Global Warming hardest are all political.
12-All the solutions involve political solutions, expantion of government control over the individual. The only talk in theoretical terms, no hard science or real solutions. The solution proffered by Algore and David are for the US to become a third world country. Example: the hydrogen ecomony, they don't offer a business plan on how to develope, produce, convert to a hydrogen ecomony, while at the same time hamstringing those most likely to make it a reality.
13-The UN report itself states that warming can't not be stopped, if we are causing it why can't we stop it?
The climate is warming. Got that David? Witz? WARMING is occurring.
Given the points above I conlude in the absense of SCIENTIFIC PROOF that warming is:
1-A NATURAL CYCLE
2-HUMAN CONTIRBUTIONS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT
3-HUMANS CANNOT AFFECT CLIMATE
Show me a perponderance of evidence that I am wrong and I will change my opinion. To do that you need a thorough understand of how the climate operates and how human activity is the prime driver.
The advocates are pushing radical expansion of government control, limitation of individual liberty based on QUESTIONABLE science. It is not reasonable to make such changes as long as the science is not settled.
The cost benefit analysis does not pencil out, why spend billions on something that may have no effect on the problem?
There are too many questions to throw out liberty, prosperity, and the innovation that prosperity brings based on such flimsy evidence.
Posted by: JCM on February 15, 2007 08:09 AMAs it couldn't possibly be who it is flying, so I was wondering what principle the environmentalists are up holding.
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 15, 2007 09:02 AM> So smart guy let's have you produce one proven case of Macroevolution i.e. trans-species evolution?
Does your opposition to evolution arise because of an opinion regarding the historical accuracy of the early chapters of Genesis?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 09:08 AMAnother major difference is that massive amounts of money are being diverted into GW, with no results to show for it, other than rich 'scientists' from the grants that are being thown around.
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 15, 2007 09:48 AM> Both are unproven THEORIES, and what is more their champions actively discourage the scienctific method that that would validate or invalidate either of them.
Yes, I know that this is your viewpoint, JDH, but what I am interested in knowing is why you are opposed to macroevolution.
Do you oppose macroevolution based upon the opinion that the book of Genesis accurately describes the origin and history of the Earth?
And what opinion do you have of humankind destroying the works of God's creation, i.e. the extinction of plant and animal species?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 09:55 AMJust where did you get your PhD in Climatology? Because according to liberals, you MUST have one to dare to question the Liberal Global Warming alarmism. Never mind the fact that Al Gore doesn't have such a credential. Ignore the man behnd the curtain...
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 09:55 AMYou didn't think that one through. Algore invented the internet - that should be good enough for anyone to establish his credentials as a climatology expert!
Posted by: Jay on February 15, 2007 11:29 AM> I believe in both evolution and creationism and know that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
There are plenty of creationists who deny that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. A fundamentalist Christian college fired a teacher several years based on this controversy.
There are published books and entire websites devoted specifically to refuting the theory that the Earth is billions of years old.
I wish I was exaggerating or lying, but this is an easily verified truth. You can verify these things easily enough.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 12:24 PM> There are a number of plausible theories regarding the beginning of life and how different species came about.
Yes, indeed, that is true.
You do also know that there are a number of scholarly theories which place Genesis within its proper context as a product of ancient mythical-religious thought borrowed explicitly from more ancient Babylonian creation myths?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 12:53 PM