Global warming has caused record snowfall in Vermont
The Valentine's Day blizzard is one for the history books.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 15, 2007 10:15 AM | Email ThisThe storm set records in Vermont for the greatest amount of snowfall in a 24-hour period and earned a spot as the second-greatest snowstorm ever in Vermont.
The 25.3 inches of snowfall Wednesday measured in Burlington topped the previous 24-hour period record of 23.1 inches on Jan. 14, 1934, according to the National Weather Service at the Burlington International Airport. Official measurements for state weather records date back to 1883 and are collected at the airport in Burlington.
Not Enough Snow For You, Talk to Your Father
"For some, Valentine's Day is much too late in the year for their first snow. Since Nature can no longer keep to her early deadlines, men like Mr. Heaven (snowmaking, like barbecuing, is still a gendered hobby) are taking matters into their own hands, and creating their own seasons, at least when it comes to winter."
"As global warming continues to wreak havoc with the weather, snowmakers impose a nostalgic order -- albeit one that does nothing to help the situation, since snowmaking runs on electricity (and water, of course, one and a half to six gallons a minute, depending on the size of the machine). Charles Santry, president of Snow Economics, said his Backyard Blizzard Sport machine, which has a 1.5 horsepower engine, can use up to 1,650 watts. A clothes dryer guzzles more power, but snowmaking is certainly not going to win any green awards."
All this snowfall which is occurring right now is actually occurring too late from the standpoint of the historical climate of the Northeast. Global Warming is having an impact upon the climate and people are noticing and adapting (if a snowmachine is properly considered "adapting").
There is plenty of evidence that the weather is changing. Those who would rather not acknowledge these changes behave like meteorologists as they report the weather outside of its proper historical context.
A snowflake in Vermont in February does not disprove Global Warming.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 10:03 AMPlease acknowledge climate has ALWAYS changed. Glaciers have been melting in Alaska for hundreds of years. Took a flight arount McKinley two years ago, used to be a glacier that reached all the way to Seward, Alaska.
If you can enumerate for me the exact contribution man has made over, say, the last 50 years towards the process, fine. If not - go find another cause to champion cause your credibility in the absence of fact nauseates me.
Posted by: ultraman on February 15, 2007 10:14 AM> Please acknowledge climate has ALWAYS changed.
Yes, ultraman, the climate has always changed.
Did you know that humans died naturally for thousands of years prior to the invention of the machine gun?
All those thousands of years of natural death hasn't prevented the machine gun from killing humans by the millions.
Did you know that during World War II when all of Europe was convulsed by warfare and genocide, some Europeans still died from natural causes?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 10:24 AMI have a question for Stefan the meteorologists:
Some of your conservative followers are Global Warming Deniers and Evolution Deniers. Are you in agreement with their skepticism regarding evolution?
There are plenty of scientists who deny that evolution occurred. There are well-esteemed scientists that deny that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old.
Do you agree with these scientists or accept a more mainstream view?
Sincerely,
David Mathews
A cloudly and cold day here in Florida
Lets not fall into the same antidotal evidence...short term thought...knee jerk reaction...non-scientific evidence as our LOONY LEFT counterparts.
One single weather event does not make a climate... it is only a single one time event...it takes decades if not centuries of these types of events to effect a climate of any given region.
Lets not become GOREBOTS from the right...he will be changing his position as soon as Hollywood and this cause of the day is over!
Let us remember: DDT, GLOBAL COOLING, ALAR, LOVE CANAL, IMPLANTS, 100 MILLION DEAD FROM AIDS IN U.S. BY 2000, ON AND ON AT NAUSEA!!!
The statue of Christopher Columbus on the Seattle waterfront was paid for and placed there some 20 years ago by the Italian community of Seattle.
Someone dumped a bucket of red paint over it. Of course, it hasn't made the papers as have the other sculptures that people touch because Christopher Columbus was white. He also has the blood of anyone who died in the last 500 years on his hands.
I'm getting disgusted by these fools.
Posted by: dan on February 15, 2007 10:38 AMEvidence that when Republicans are optimistic the wise people ought to run for the hills:
A Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 -- When Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his top officers gathered in August 2002 to review an invasion plan for Iraq, it reflected a decidedly upbeat vision of what the country would look like four years after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.
"A broadly representative Iraqi government would be in place. The Iraqi Army would be working to keep the peace. And the United States would have as few as 5,000 troops in the country."
These are the same people who insist that sending 20,000 more troops will solve Iraq's problems now.
Imagine the sorts of troubles that future generations of humans will encounter if the Global Warming Denier's optimism fails in a similar manner?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 10:42 AM> Someone dumped a bucket of red paint over it.
That's a terrible way to treat Christopher Columbus.
Do you know how the Europeans handled the civilizations of the New World?
The United States of America conducted a war of genocidal aggression in order to fulfill its Manifest Destiny of gaining control of the continent from coast to coast.
The land the you own was stolen from the Native Americans. They did not donate this land to the United States of America. They were killed so that you could possess this land.
Too bad about Columbus, though.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 10:46 AMI suspect the damage to the Columbus statue was a random act of vandalism, kind of like people spray-painting random signs. This angers me as a citizen who has to see this damage and pay to repair it. But I understand why the govt assigns it lower priority than more serious crimes.
Random vandalism on this scale isn't news because people care more about bigger problems (and dumb things like Anna Nicole Smith, but that's another story).
It's true that we pay more attention when someone vandalizes symbols of minorities -- BUT only when there's evidence that it's intended to intimidate a group of people. Then it becomes a crime against people, not just a property crime.
Or do you think that this vandal was attempting to intimidate white people or Italian-Americans?
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2007 11:01 AMThat same snowflake does not affirm a connection between global warming and its existence either, but that doesn't stop the old media from making the connection.
NY Times: "As global warming continues to wreak havoc with the weather."
---
David Mathews: "Imagine the sorts of troubles that future generations of humans will encounter if the Global Warming Denier's optimism fails in a similar manner?"
The obvious difference here is that Demorat opposition to our troops and Demorat efforts to help defeat America in this war has had a significant impact on our current situation in the Middle East. Demorats' constant anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-troops message has been a self-fullfilling prophecy, emboldening our enemies with the knowledge that they have allies here in America even more at war with this administration than the terrorists.
To the contrary, nothing that Demorats say or do will alter the direction this planet takes in warming, cooling, or any other meteorological outcome, so maybe we should be supportive of Demorats' rantings on the issue of Global Warming, as at least it takes away some of their energy in helping terrorists defeat us.
But in referring to Mathews' question, I think the more relevant fantasy would be to imagine a world where Demorats put the interests of the American people above their own political aspirations? Where this nation could focus on real problems like winning this war, or keeping our economy solvent under the pressures of the entitlement state, instead of burying them in exchange for the myriad of bogus issues that Demorats and the media propagate for their own political gain.
Posted by: MJC on February 15, 2007 11:06 AMDavid, you're right. The land where you are sitting/standing/lying right now is not yours. You live in Florida. That land was stolen by the Spaniards from the indigenous people. Then those nasty white guy Americans stole it from thje Spaniards. It isn't yours. You shouldn't be there. Live up to your beliefs and leave. Right now. Go back to where you came from. Do not reply to this note. Make no further postings to SP. Never again darken the souls of others with your postings. Give up all modern conveniences that are partly made from the fruits of mining activities (since mining is an abomination to the Earth). Never use the internet or a computer again. Be a man and put your beliefs into actions. Go away somewhere to a deserted island and live a primitive, back-to-nature lifestyle. Eat only coconuts and drink only rainwater. If you get sick or injured, well, T. S. Eliot, just lay down and die, because anything else would be an act of violence against Nature (as well as being Capitalistic and Fascist).
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 15, 2007 11:13 AMNo, I know the vandalism wasn't directed at Italian-Americans, it was directed at white people.
See Dave's post at #9 for the reason why they did it. He and his way of thinking is what I'm disgusted by. Do as I say not as I do.
Since I am so tired repeat the same points over and over again and getting non-responses.
We do not deny GW. We question the science, the politics and motives of those pushing GW.
REPOST BELOW>
First for you humorless LLL out there (Witz, David) Shark is being tongue in check posting WEATHER reports as CLIMATE change.
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 11:17 AMWhere do you get this stuff?
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2007 11:18 AM> That land was stolen by the Spaniards from the indigenous people.
Florida was stolen from the Native Americans. I am well aware of this fact because numerous places that I visit locally have distinct evidence of Native American inhabitation dating back hundreds or thousands of years.
The Native Americans were much better for Florida than obese America. Florida is a polluted, asphalt-covered wasteland after four centuries of European occupation. There was a time when all of this land was living and a great diversity of life flourished here.
Now all you find is shopping centers, malls, and obese Americans obsessively shopping for the most frivolous of trinkets to celebrate their participation in the destructive delusion of capitalism.
The Europeans should have stayed in Europe. The world would be a much better place today if the Europeans did not murder so many millions as they fought aggressive wars to conquer the entire globe and enslave the world's non-Europeans.
If I had it in my power to travel back in time I would enact substantial anti-immigration policies for the Western hemisphere prior to 1492 A.D. Columbus wouldn't have had any choice except to turn tail and go home.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 11:24 AMYou say "There are well-esteemed scientists that deny that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old."
No there aren't.
You are insane and evil. Please go away, and if you won't immediately convert yourself into fossil fuel, at least pledge to never again use any artifact invented by man including computers, medicines, electric lights, buildings, clothes.... Thank you.
Posted by: Steve on February 15, 2007 11:24 AMWhere do you get this stuff?
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2007 11:27 AM> You say "There are well-esteemed scientists that deny that the Earth is older than 10,000 years old." "No there aren't."
You are seriously mistaken, Steve.
Here is a whole bunch of scientists who deny evolution and historical geology in favor of creationism and Noah's Flood:
http://www.icr.org/
Some well-known and well-respected names are mixed in with that bunch.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 11:28 AMHyperlinked Evolution Denying Scientists:
Institute for Creation Research
The scientific evidences against evolution and the ancient Earth are compelling enough for those people who do not want to believe these things.
Same is true for Global Warming, too, except that the anti-Global Warming cause is supported by corporations which are currently earning billions of dollars a week and therefore can afford to make extraordinarily professional-looking critiques of the scientific data. They oil corporations can also afford very expensive propaganda campaigns.
ExxonMobil made nearly $40,000,000,000 last year. That's forty billion reasons for oil corporations to deny global warming.
So why do you stay there? By staying you are contributing to the desecration and debauchery. Please have the courage of your convictions and leave. Go away. Find some tropical paradise and stay there. And don't bother the rest of us. Leave us alone to stew. We'll get our comeuppance some day if you are right. Then you can sit on your tropical island and laugh. Or maybe just kill yourself, I don't know.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 15, 2007 11:36 AMMost peer-accepted scientific research (though you may belittle it) contradicts your points #3 and 7. All your other points are side issues -- just because we don't fully understand everything or can't stop climate change (a ridiculous goal that no one has seriously proposed) doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.
What precisely would be enough evidence for you to want to do something? Do you believe that smoking causes cancer, or that evolution happens, or that the Alaskan Way viaduct is dangerous, or that a Republican should be elected president in 2008? Do you have scientific proof?
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2007 11:37 AM>Did you know that humans died naturally for thousands of years prior to the invention of the machine gun?
Well, man died due to many diseases such as malaria and plague. Do you consider that "natural"? If so, then surely you aren't immunized at all against things like polio, mumps & rubella as that is "natural" as well.
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 11:38 AMPlease stop posting NY Times propaganda here. They are utterly without a shred of credibility and as such only show the lack of credibility of anyone citing them as a serious source. The scandals of Jayson Blair, Charlie LeDuff, Walter Duranty and others provide clear evidence of this.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_scandals
Walter Duranty, The New York Times (1930s)
Walter Duranty, who covered the Soviet Union for The New York Times, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of articles he wrote about Josef Stalin's effort to industrialize the nation. His stories not only uncritically backed Stalinist propaganda, but also denied that the Ukrainian famine, which killed millions as a direct or indirect result of Stalinist planning, took place. Duranty also defended Stalin's infamous show trials.
Despite efforts by Ukrainian groups to get the prize revoked, the Pulitzer board declined to do so and both the Pulitzer board and The New York Times still list Duranty among its prize winners, albeit with a footnote that his work is disputed. The New York Times hired Mark Von Hagen, a professor of Russian history, to review Duranty's work. The review concluded Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and they often gave voice to Stalin's propaganda.
Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003)
In early May 2003, The New York Times reporter Jayson Blair resigned after being confronted with evidence of fabricating quotes and details in at least 36 articles. The incident, and the revelations about management that followed, shook the journalism community, given that many journalists regard the Times as the nation's most prestigious newspaper. The paper's credibility was particularly hard hit, because Blair had completely fabricated some of his stories.
After Blair's resignation scrutiny quickly fell on executive editor Howell Raines, and to a lesser extent managing editor Gerald M. Boyd, as testimony from Times watchers and employees disgruntled with Raines' autocratic management style showed the duo had fast-tracked Blair for promotion, despite warnings from other employees about Blair's erratic behavior and high error rate. O
Times' Metro editor Jonathan Landman wrote in an e-mail to Raines that the paper "...need[ed] to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." Bernard Goldberg, in his best-selling book "Arrogance," said that by all accounts, Raines "...made Napoleon Bonaparte look like Richard Simmons." On June 5, 2003, Raines and Boyd resigned as a result of this scandal.
Hassan Fattah, New York Times' Abu Ghraib photos (2006)
In March 2006, the New York Times ran a front-page interview by reporter Hassan M. Fattah with Ali Shalal Qaissi, who claimed he was the man hooded and hooked up to wires in the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison picture. The Internet magazineSalon quickly questioned the man's claim, as did the U.S. military, and the Times soon discovered that the man was not really the person in the picture. Furthermore, the Times had run the actual man's name in its own pages several years earlier.
The Times admitted in the correction that it did not do enough to establish the man's identity. Ironically, days later, the Times retracted the profile of a Hurricane Katrina refugee living in a Bronx hotel and criticizing the government's handling of the crisis because she, too, was a fraud. She was arrested on fraud charges for allegedly attempting to get federal relief.
Jack Hitt and New York Times Abortion/Infanticide Article (2006)
On April 9, 2006, the New York Times printed an article by Jack Hitt[4] claiming Carmen Climaco was jailed in El Salvador for having an abortion. On December 31, 2006, the New York Times published a correction by its ombudsmen where they explained that Ms Climaco had been convicted of murdering her child after birth. The claims of it being an abortion had been made by an organization supporting legalized abortion and the New York Times had not verified their information. [5]
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 11:48 AMNor does it have anything to do with this issue (vandalism of the Columbus statue), in my opinion. And even if it did, it won't make white people feel endangered. The perpetrator, if caught, should be prosecuted for vandalism.
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2007 11:51 AMLet those on the hysteria bandwagon continue to bleat. Liven it up for the masses. Keep calling for everyone to go back to the dark ages. It all helps to gel the Average Joe to the understanding that this is not about anything other than the age old trick of using hype as a vehicle for a select few to control the many.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 15, 2007 11:53 AMConservative Christians do not possess a consensus regarding denial of global warming:
Evangelicals Protect The Planet, The Planet God Created
"Climate change isn't the only turf Evangelicals have been walking on lately. Marcus R. Ross submitted a doctoral dissertation to the University of Rhode Island in December on the existence of mosasaurs, but was vocal about his status as a ''young earth creationist'' who, aside from his academic work, believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old."
How's that for synergy?
Young Earth Creationism, Biblical literalism, and climate change.
Look's like the world is changing. Even the most conservative of the conservatives are noticing that humans have gone too far in the destruction of the Earth.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 12:04 PMMother Jones??? ROFL
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 12:08 PMWhen you post part of another's work, you are supposed to annotate it clearly with the source. Eaxmple:
"Leftist Propaganda Headline"
by Karl Marx
excerpt:
"Blah blah blah. Put your long winded marxist anti-American crap here."
Not that you or Jayson Blair care about properly identifying your sources or anything.
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 12:13 PMDude are you reading Marx or what!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2007 12:18 PM> Mother Jones???
Mother Jones is at least as reliable as George WMD Bush. Don't you agree?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 12:19 PMYour a lier and a loser.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2007 12:21 PM> 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
I read your 13 points but do not see any sort of substantial proof of the above three conclusions, especially #3.
For example: While it is altogether true that nuclear fusion primarily occurs in stars, and has occurred in stars for billions of years, it does not follow that humans cannot generate a nuclear fusion reaction which might cause direct harm to humankind. The hydrogen bomb's fusion blast only lasts for milliseconds but that is sufficient to demolish an entire city and kill a million civilians.
In other words: The existence of natural causes does not refuse human causes.
I am pleased to hear that you agree that global warming is occurring:
> The climate is warming. Got that David? Witz? WARMING is occurring.
Do you suppose that all those millions of tons of pollution that humans pump into the atmosphere every day have no impact whatsoever upon the climate?
> Is there any issue in which your position differs materially from that of the prevailing MSM position or that of the NYTimes or that of Hollywood?
You will have to tell me Hollywood's and the New York Times' positions in order for me to give you a proper answer.
All I can say about Hollywood is: Halle Berry is the most beautiful woman since Eve.
All I can say about the New York Times: Undoubtedly the best newspaper in the nation. That's why I read it every day.
About MSM, I only have one thing to say: Sports Illustrated does America a great service with its annual Swimsuit Issue. I hope you agree.
These are my only opinions regarding these subjects. Now about the snow in Vermont ...
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 12:59 PMWhen are you going to answer this one. (Mother Jones is at least as reliable as George WMD Bush. Don't you agree?)
I'll ask one more time David. How many Dem's from B&H Clinton and on, said the same thing about WMDs & Saddam!
Come on suck it up and tell us. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2007 01:01 PMIf the vandalism has nothing to do with what David says in his post, then why do the act at all? Why not use blue or yellow paint? The problem is it fosters the hateful sentiments in people like you.
As in global warming, you feel, every little bit helps, or hurts. This is a hate-based crime. Is it less so because you think it's justified?
Yes, Europeans came here and did what they did.
Some bad, most good.
You're so progressive in your view of the future of planet earth, why do you insist on hashing and re-hashing what was done 400 years ago, of which you are the beneficiary.
Do something positive to change the world, give all your earnings to poor people, feed Africa,
go tend to the Iraqis that have been injured.
I hear the fools at KOS are waiting to hear from you. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2007 01:18 PMMother Jones is at least as reliable as George WMD Bush. Don't you agree?
Well, when I excerpt George "WMD" Bush in regards to the topic of this thread (Liberal Theory of Global Warming), as you put it, then you may post you objections.
And for the record, if you thought GWB was not credible and equate that lack of credibility with Mother Jone's lack of credibility, then you make yourself look even MORE non-credible by citing Mother Jones in the first place. Basically, you are agreeing that you cite non-credible sources to back up your arguments (not that it is any newsflash to any of us that have been reading your posts).
As for who was telling us there were WMD's in Iraq well let's see:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Guess what? The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. That means it's Solar System Warming, not just Global warming and no Socialists plot is going to "fix" that. However, if we find that the Martians are fat white men who believe in Capitalism but not in Evolution, then I might reconsider.
Posted by: THBarb on February 15, 2007 01:40 PMOOOOOOOO David M..
You may wish to see this. Antarctic Temps didn't meet Climate model predictions.
Darn it just didn't get warm there.
LOL dave you lose again!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 15, 2007 01:52 PMexcerpt:
Newswise -- A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of geography and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available - there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Posted by: pbj on February 15, 2007 02:07 PMWeapons of Global Warming Destruction
By Noel Sheppard
Since 9/11, there has been an international debate concerning a battle of civilizations. In the few short weeks since the Democrats officially took over Congress, a different war has taken shape within our own borders, and has morphed into a potentially more important conflagration, at least for the time being.
At the heart of the debate is anthropogenic global warming, and what America should do about it if anything. On the fringes is: the battle to unionize Wal-Mart; another push for universal healthcare; the perennial goal of raising taxes; the jealous desire to limit the pay of CEOs, and; a Hugo Chavez-like call to strip the oil companies of their profits.
As Americans, we should be almost as fearful of this ideological war as the one we are waging against Islamic extremists. After all, the first time capitalist principles lost out to socialist ones in the depths of the Great Depression, decades of budget deficits and exploding federal debt ensued that still threaten our financial solvency today, and our children's futures tomorrow.
In fact, two and a half decades since the start of the Reagan Revolution, the free market is once again under attack. If capitalists on both sides of the aisle don't take a stand to squelch this call for government to solve all of our problems, our children will be destined to live much more austerely than us, and become the first generation of Americans to be less successful than their parents.
Global Warming Deniers are now on a Par With Holocaust Deniers
The center of the battle between socialism and capitalism right now is clearly global warming, and it is fascinating to see what lengths the left will go to advance their forces on this issue. Such actions now include threats to people's jobs if they don't conform to the views expressed by liberals concerning man's "undeniable" role in causing the earth's temperatures to rise.
In late December, The Weather Channel's foremost climate expert Heidi Cullen called for meteorologists to be stripped of their certifications by the American Meteorological Society if they disagreed with the tenets of anthropogenic global warming.
Just last week, the Democrat governor of Oregon threatened to remove the mostly-ceremonial title of State Climatologist from a man that has held the position since 1991 all because the gentleman questions man's role in climate change.
On February 7, former Vice President Al Gore, the left's true champion on this issue, told a group he was speaking in front of in Madrid, Spain, that China is correct to blame America for global warming. Maybe more important, Gore stated to the crowd that this Asian country - which happens to possess the fastest growing economy on the planet with the largest population base - shouldn't be required to participate in climate solutions until the United States does its share.
Those familiar with the strategies employed by socialists must recognize the common tactic of blaming the world's problems on America while absolving all other nation's of any responsibility. Gore is indeed a master at this.
Of course, an interesting hypocrisy exists in this strategy as Gore travels the world stoking irrational fear to win over the simple-minded. After all, isn't he now doing exactly that which he accused President Bush of in 2004?
For those that have forgotten, this is what Gore said about President Bush and the war in Iraq on February 9, 2004, just prior to the Tennessee Democrat primary:
He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!
Remember this? How different is Gore's claim about the President three years ago from his current rant about civilization's imminent doom all based on a slide presentation that he created well before he was elected Vice President in 1992?
In reality, by exaggerating the dangers of global warming, as well as man's real or imagined role, Gore and his ilk are using exactly the same fear tactics they claim the Bush administration was guilty of in the lead up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Somehow, the media have all missed this extraordinarily delicious hypocrisy as they themselves fall hook, line, and sinker for the conclusions they so desire to hear from those they hold in highest esteem. A fine example was published in the February 9 Boston Globe, as liberal writer Ellen Goodman offensively proclaimed:
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future [emphasis added].
Goodman was employing a common liberal tactic of eliminating debate on an issue by self-ordaining dissenters as vile vermin. This was especially offensive given a recent ACNielsen Internet poll which concluded that more than 50 percent of Americans don't believe humans are responsible for global warming.
Don't you love it when these sanctimonious socialists claim to be smarter than everyone else as they advocate taking away our money for our own good? If they'd only learn how to insult us in a fashion that wasn't so obvious, we'd gladly turn over all our worldly possessions for the causes they hold so dear.
Calling a Charade a Charade
In the end, that indeed is what this is all about: Global warming represents the Democrats' weapons of mass destruction. With it, they hope to scare enough Americans into sacrificing their own financial well-being all for the noble goal of saving the planet.
This is why the sudden urgency for action. After all, the Democrats and their media minions learned from their successful defeat of Social Security reform in 2005 that Americans aren't concerned about what they perceive as problems in the distant future.
As the left and the press were able to convince folks that Social Security insolvency wouldn't occur for at least another thirty years or more, the problem was easily swept far enough under the rug to be ignored. In this way, the largest and most obvious example of socialism in America was miraculously kept intact, for the time being of course, without the slightest capitalist tinkering.
However, by cleverly claiming that seas are going to rise and begin killing innocent people in ten years if nothing is done to stop it, the liberals have created an urgency about global warming that the Bush administration failed to with Social Security. As a result, the population is now ripe for listening to solutions for a problem that is significantly more a figment of the imagination than the mathematical certainty that America's largest entitlement program will go bankrupt if changes aren't enacted.
Put another way, two years ago, the left and the media were able to convince the American people that there was no consensus about when Social Security would run out of money, and though they agreed it will certainly happen at some point, Americans were more than happy to defer concern for this seemingly distant problem. Yet, two years later, these same politicians and press representatives have created an hysteria over an unproven theory, professing a consensus that they advertise as incontrovertible even though none exists, all over a calamity that might never actually occur.
Isn't that extraordinary?
But this is only part of the charade. As America has moved away from organized labor in the past two and a half decades, the stock market has exploded, as have real estate prices, wages, and the number of people on non-farm payrolls. During this period, the average net worth of the citizenry has dramatically outpaced inflation while the standard of living improved across all social strata.
Of course, this makes socialists despondent, for the better off people are, the less they need to rely on government. As such, along with using global warming to scare the population into making financial sacrifices for the supposedly common good, the left have also vilified America's largest employer, Wal-Mart, and are advocating legislation to force it to unionize.
Bear in mind that union membership has been steadily dropping in this country for six decades. Estimates suggest that one-third of American employees were union members in 1945. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this percentage was 20.1 in 1983, and plummeted to 12.0 percent in 2006.
This can't possibly make socialists happy. Therefore, compelling America's largest employer - with 1.4 million employees - to unionize would be seen as a huge victory for the forces of socialism.
I Want to Take Those Profits
Of course, another bugaboo of socialists is the idea of companies making money. As such, the following proclamation by the presumptive favorite to win the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton, was quite cautionary:
The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence.
Has there been a statement made by a leading presidential candidate in recent memory that better defined a Party's ethos than this? 1984 comes to mind, but we'll get to that.
A Reach Too Far
In the end, grave changes appear to be transforming the American population that are certainly far different than the conservative realignment Karl Rove spoke of after President Bush was reelected in November 2004.
Republicans must accept some blame for this shift, as the 109th Congress achieved almost nothing that history will look favorably upon other than two Supreme Court appointments. Furthermore, the public's continuing decline in support for the Iraq war naturally moves the electorate away from the President's Party.
As a result, Democrats currently have the eyes and ears of the population like no other time since Bill Clinton was first elected president. With global warming now on the front pages of major newspapers on almost a daily basis, the left have a high-profile issue that easily cuts across gender, race, and social strata.
However, are the liberals overplaying their hand here?
The Democrats took back Congress in 2006 by keeping their opinions about everything other than George W. Bush and the war in Iraq to themselves. As such, the elections weren't an affirmation of socialist concepts, but, instead, a repudiation of the war in Iraq and the Party the electorate rightly or wrongly held responsible.
As Rove conceivably overestimated the public's message in November 2004, it is just as likely that the Democrats have perilously misinterpreted the electorate's intentions two years later.
In fact, it seems implausible that the left would have been as successful at the polls three months ago if candidates would have campaigned for: higher taxes; turning Wal-Mart into a union shop; creating universal healthcare; stripping oil company profits to create a strategic energy fund, and; imposing CO2 emissions caps on businesses that would raise prices on virtually all domestic goods and services.
In the end, the country has likely not moved anywhere near as far to the left in the past twelve months as the leading Democrat candidates for president have.
Of course, such an overreach seems quite common to this ilk. Just ask Walter Mondale.
Noel Sheppard is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org, and a contributing writer to its Business & Media Institute. Noel welcomes feedback at nsheppard@costlogic.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/weapons_of_global_warming_dest.html at February 15, 2007 - 05:41:40 PM EST
Scientific investigation of Antarctica's climate is relatively young and incomplete. All models regarding how Antarctica might react to climate change are subject to substantial revision.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 02:20 PMDan@13, David's comments (at least the ones in #9) are indisputably true. What exactly do you disagree with? None of that minimizes the positive things that our European ancestors did in building American society. Nor does it suggest what, if anything, we should do about it now.
David Matthews@9 said:
Do you know how the Europeans handled the civilizations of the New World?
The United States of America conducted a war of genocidal aggression in order to fulfill its Manifest Destiny of gaining control of the continent from coast to coast.
The land the you own was stolen from the Native Americans. They did not donate this land to the United States of America. They were killed so that you could possess this land.
To Bruce and David:
How the European settlers handled the indigenous peoples of the New World is subject to interpretation, with the worst possible interpretation being spun by Howard Zinn. The goal of the settlers was not to displace and destroy the indigenous peoples, but to make a new life for themselves by fleeing an Europe for which they had lost all affection. They sought freedom.
As for committing genocide, we did a piss-poor job of it, as I understand the term. Do you think we got cold feet or are just inefficient?
The historical record is filled with treaties and grants of land from Indian nations to the United States. You may dispute their validity, but an attempt was made to be on the up and up with the Indian nations, and I disagree with your characterization of negotiated transfers of land as theft. Hell, even the Manhattan Indians got $24 worth of beads. Theft? I think not.
Posted by: huckleberry on February 15, 2007 02:30 PMhttp://physorg.com/news90782778.html
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions
>>>
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
> As for committing genocide, we did a piss-poor job of it, as I understand the term. Do you think we got cold feet or are just inefficient?
Europeans murdered -- directly and indirectly -- almost 90% of the Native American populations of the Western hemisphere.
That seems like a pretty efficient act of genocide to me?
Perhaps you were thinking that the Europeans should have exterminated the Native populations of the Western hemisphere.
Believe me, if the Europeans came to the United States and committed today what these nations committed four centuries ago ... you would realize that Osama is about a million times less violent than the Europeans.
For those who seek to gain a true appreciation of the violence of Europeans, I say: Remember the 20th century?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 03:09 PMAmericans are not Europeans. Americans are descended from people who fled the decay of European culture that ultimately lead to Jacobinism, Socialism, and Nazism. We are the good guys.
As for Native Americans, if genocide had been the purpose of early Americans, I am confident the Americans would have done a better job.
Of course the American Indians have come out on the losing end of a struggle for dominance on the American continents. Bad things have happened to them. But I don't believe that non-indigenous Americans have been as genocidal as you believe they were (and are)?
Out of honest curiosity, why do you remain in a country whose inhabitants you despise?
Posted by: huckleberry on February 15, 2007 04:05 PM> Of course the American Indians have come out on the losing end of a struggle for dominance on the American continents. Bad things have happened to them. But I don't believe that non-indigenous Americans have been as genocidal as you believe they were (and are)?
You, obviously, have not spent any time listening to the Native Americans of the Western Hemisphere. They have a dramatically different opinion regarding the outcome of the European conquest.
I respect their opinions. I have very little sympathy for the Western apologists for the conquest. Americans can justify the crimes of the 19th century because we won the war and therefore write the histories which portray Americans as brave and benevolent.
> Out of honest curiosity, why do you remain in a country whose inhabitants you despise?
The work of preventing America from committing more crimes & genocides is most easily accomplished in the United States of America.
The United States of America is a country which still can commit acts of genocide in this world. I fear that the political forces on behalf of genocide are too powerful to stop, so I must argue against prejudice, bigotry & irrational fear wherever I encounter these.
The United States of America is a country which needs to stop killing civilians and stop fighting wars, now. So I vote, I write e-mails to congress, and I pray for peace.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 15, 2007 04:21 PMThe IPCC is not a science body as Gore and his bed fellows would have us believe. It might have once been a body with scientists associated with it, but since the mid-1990's objective scientists who did not buy into the ideological objectives of the IPCCs political controllers were purged from the group.
A scientific consensus only exists as figment of Al Gore's ideological fantasy. Eminent climate scientists throughout the world, many of whom were once members of IPCC science panel, have spent over a decade telling us that the jury was out on this issue.
The truth is now coming out that valid but contradictory research into competing theories on the mechanisms of climate fluctuation have languished for many years while the alramists have been hoarding the limited research funds to support "What If" studies as though the underlying assumption of anthropomorphic causes has been settled.
Now that this contradictory research is being distributed in the scientific community, the global warmists are becoming increasingly shrill in an effort to drown out the truth.
This Machiavellian approach (you know - ends justify means) is beginning to blow back in the faces of Al Gore and his fellow travelers as those scientists who sat on the fence awaiting some real evidence are finally seeing it. And that evidence points not toward CO2, but to solar activity and other natural phenomena.
And who is the big loser? Not Al Gore! Not even the American taxpayer (its still early enough to reverse the insanity).
The real loser is the environment. Think a minute about the next, possibly real, environmental problem and whether we or our burned elected leaders will respond.
Cry wolf too many times and nobody will beieve it.
Posted by: deadwood on February 15, 2007 05:21 PMSo basically all you are saying is, give peace a chance? Man, that sounds vaguely familiar to me.
Do yourself a favor and the next time you have God on the line, ask him to look into your heart and mind, too. Best of luck, dude.
Posted by: huckleberry on February 15, 2007 05:38 PMBefore you answer think about this one (of many) example and respond with this in mind. A gay American Mathew Shepard was linched and left tied to a gate. We heard of this, non-stop, for months and there has been numerous movies and TV shows dedicated to it. Every day in middle eastern countries things happen similar, and worse, all with government and "religous" sanction if not participation. I am not aware of our "consciousness beinr raised" to the second scenario to the degree that the first isolated incident was. So am I not to gather that the outrage expressed to the first doesn't cary over to the second? Or is it that some get a pass if their transgressions don't help to portray the USA in a bad way? Show me that the left doesn't suffer from "selective outrage" if you can.
Posted by: JDH on February 15, 2007 05:49 PMThis Machiavellian approach (you know - ends justify means) is beginning to blow back in the faces of Al Gore and his fellow travelers as those scientists who sat on the fence awaiting some real evidence are finally seeing it. And that evidence points not toward CO2, but to solar activity and other natural phenomena."
The truth is starting to rear its head here. Listening to Matthew's claptrap and the hysteria of he and his ilk who say that humans share a bulk of the blame for this phenomenon make me want to puke. With that said,humans are mainly responsible for polluting the atmosphere of mother Earth.
This world is becoming overpopulated anyway. Chalk warming up to nature's way. No matter how much money and/or fascistic laws in an attempt to control people that the Green-left and the Inconvenient Truth hysterics throw at this cause, it will not change the outcome significantly. I challenge anyone to prove contrary to this. Flatulence from Leftwingnuts and Neo-commies are a big cause of Global warming - more than they will ever want to confess to.
The Kyoto Accord will never be taken seriously until China and India are held accountable - will the UN ever wise up ? (I doubt it). With that said, the world, especially the so-called developing countries need to pollute less for the good of all... That will eliminate a healthy portion of the CO2, if and when that is ever accomplished.
Posted by: KS on February 15, 2007 06:23 PM
> Do yourself a favor and the next time you have God on the line, ask him to look into your heart and mind, too.
God already knows my heart and mind. I hope that God is pleased, but if not ... I am only a man.
"I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; and he hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live" (Qur'an 19 Maryam: 30-31).
God's patience with the United States of America is fast approaching its end. I encourage all Americans to accept the decline of America's military might and economic power in a peaceful and humble manner.
If America chooses to surrender to decline only after fighting a perpetual war of attrition the scale of suffering in the United States of America shall exceed all previous national catastrophes combined.
The time for Americans to make sacrifices is right now
America have a choice. I hope that Americans choose wisely.
#56 - Blasphemy in its highest order ! Substitute Iran for USA/America and then you may have some substance.. Your wannabe radical Islam brethren will pay for their sins !
Posted by: KS on February 15, 2007 08:04 PM> Substitute Iran for USA/America and then you may have some substance.. Your wannabe radical Islam brethren will pay for their sins !
This is the act of genocide which I fear the United States of America might commit. All of this prejudice, bigotry & irrational fear against the Muslims only serves to justify American violence against Muslims.
Americans must stand up against American militarism and George WMD Bush's reckless aggression.
Too many Americans have already died. Too many Muslim civilians have already died. Too many innocent children have already died.
The United States of America is on the path to committing a major act of genocide in the Middle East.
God doesn't approve of American violence against Muslims. God doesn't approve of American aggressive militarism.
For those who want to argue about Antarctica, some rather disturbing news:
Scientists sound alarm over melting Antarctic ice sheets
By Steve Connor, Science Editor in San Francisco
Published: 16 February 2007
The long-term stability of the massive ice sheets of Antarctica, which have the potential to raise sea levels by hundreds of metres, has been called into question with the discovery of fast-moving rivers of water sliding beneath their base.
Scientists analysing satellite data were astonished to discover the size of the vast lakes and river systems flowing beneath the Antarctic ice sheets, which may lubricate the movement of these glaciers as they flow into the surrounding sea.
The discovery raises fresh questions about the speed at which sea levels might rise in a warmer world due to the rate at which parts of the ice sheets slide from the land into the ocean, scientists said at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.
"We've found that there are substantial subglacial lakes under ice that's moving a couple of metres per day. It's really ripping along. It's the fast-moving ice that determines how the ice sheet responds to climate change on a short timescale," said Robert Bindschadler, a Nasa scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, one of the study's co-authors.
"We aren't yet able to predict what these ice streams are going to do. We're still learning about the controlling processes. Water is critical, because it's essentially the grease on the wheel. But we don't know the details yet," Dr Bindschadler said. "Until now, we've had just a few glimpses into what's going on down there. This is the most complete picture to date about what's going on," he said.
The world is changing in dramatic yet barely perceptible ways. The world is changing but we won't do anything to avoid a major catastrophe. The climate is changing but Americans insist that they are not obligated to make any sort of sacrifices.
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
"Behold, you house is being left to you desolate!"
(Matthew 23:37-38)
Those unwilling to make sacrifices shall lose more than they would have sacrificed. Such is the tragedy of America's greed & gluttony.
David Matthews wrote; "God doesn't approve of American violence against Muslims. God doesn't approve of American aggressive militarism."
So, you are insinuating that God approves of Islamic radical violence against Americans and other civiilians ? You wannabe Islamofascist SOB ! We all understand perfectly what you meant.
Posted by: KS on February 15, 2007 09:04 PMA new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
...
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available - there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
...
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
Yet, the world is coming to an end and we must push the US (and Europe) to fatally curtail their economies while allowing China and India to increase their CO2 (the gas that is "killing" the planet).
Reminds me of a line from Quigley Down Under:
"Don't know where we're going, but no use being late"
Where is the scientific proof that man causes global warming?
Science is conclusive and can be duplicated over and over like 2+2=4
Some "inconvenient truths" for Al Gore and his friends:
1) There is no scientific consensus on global warming
2) Climate is always changing- with or without man.
3) hurricanes are not getting worse-our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater
4) Many big businesses lobby global warming policies that will increase their profits- and our cost.
5) The Medieval Warming Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today-and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan.
Christopher C. Horner is a senor fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and acknowledged expert on global warming legislation and regulation, and has spoken before Senate committees and the European Parliament.
Exposing the greens' absurdity
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of influence, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.
Christopher Horner takes us through this story, including fascinating investigations into the role of major industries and the muzzling of science, with verve, humor and a genuine concern for accuracy. His descriptions will provoke laughter as well as recognition that tears are more in order'.
-Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences MIT; member of the National Academy of Science and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I just finished reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner
and am watching the C-Span coverage of this issue and have notice that Russia alone would receive 39 billion dollars of co2 credits yearly and will represent a 300 billion dollar hit to our economy.
Here are some facts for the people that are politicizing this old issue; Al Gore is trying to invent another new industry like he did the internet.
Posted by: Bill on February 15, 2007 11:05 PM> So, you are insinuating that God approves of Islamic radical violence against Americans and other civiilians ?
I know that conservatives are not especially intelligent but the above comment really is remarkable is in its sheer stupidity.
God does not approve of violence of any sort.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 04:23 AM> SO Matthews is an Islamic butt-hole licker now too? Wow, he gets around.
Prejudice & bigotry are common traits among conservatives. You are merely playing to the conservative political base by combining religious bigotry and anti-homosexual bigotry in one small little package.
Ted Haggard was a conservative Christian who publicly opposed homosexuality while privately practicing the same. So you see that Christianity, conservatism and homosexuality are not as incompatible as they seem.
And, yes, I certainly will defend the Muslims against the genocidal tendencies of conservatives. I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that declared: Pave the Middle East. Undoubtedly there are plenty of conservatives who would like to commit an act of genocide against the Muslims.
Prejudice, bigotry, irrational fear and perpetual war: These are conservatism's primary gifts to the 21st century world.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 04:30 AM> Where is the scientific proof that man causes global warming?
What sort of scientific proof would it take to change your mind, Bill?
Those who seek to avoid responsibility & sacrifice will find plenty of reasons to doubt.
For example, after two thousand years of committing atrocities all over the world, Christians still insist that Christianity is a religion of peace & love & non-violence.
If two thousand years of violence is not enough evidence to convince Christians that they are following a bloody violent religion, how much evidence is needed to convince you that humankind's pollution is having a negative impact upon the environment?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 04:36 AMFolks this says it all right here!
Froms davids mouth : know that conservatives are not especially intelligent but the above comment really is remarkable is in its sheer stupidity:
Let's start off with smart libs. T Kennedy, who can't swin. Al Gore, warmiing everywhere, but I still have a huge house and fly my jet. Plus not to forget, he invented the internet. I could go on for hours, but Dave your words alone prove to all of us just how really dumb and foolish you are. LOL
Keep it up dave, I know were enjoying all your smart comments.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 16, 2007 06:13 AMYou should keep that comment within its context:
KS claimed that my opposition to American violence constituted an approval of Muslim violence.
Needless to say, such a conclusion is a breathtaking display of stupidity.
Since 9/11, how many Muslim civilians have Americans killed in Iraq -- either directly via our military equipment or indirectly through the anarchy which America has generated?
The Muslims are dying every day because of American violence. Attacking Iran would merely serve to increase American bloodshed. Instead of hundreds of Muslim civilians dying every day, an attack on Iran would generate thousands of Muslim civilians dying every day.
George WMD Bush has killed more civilians than Osama Bin Laden. This violence has got to stop. The eternal long war has to end.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 06:24 AMYour comment, "two thousand years of violence is not enough evidence to convince Christians that they are following a bloody violent religion..." displays a woeful ignorance of history and religion. Are you self taught or did some University Professor give you that?
It is appears to me that you hate America and Christians. Perhaps an American Christian has offended you. Perhaps an offensive indvidual claiming to be American and a Christian has offended you. In either case, as an ambassodor of the Lord Jesus Christ, may I offer you an apology? And, may I suggest that you read the Bible? Start with the Gospel of John and then read the other three. Don't do it to prove me right or wrong. God loves you David. I may not but God does and He wants you to know it.
Posted by: THBarb on February 16, 2007 07:07 AM> In either case, as an ambassodor of the Lord Jesus Christ, may I offer you an apology?
You need not apologize to me, THBarb. You ought to apologize to Christ.
> And, may I suggest that you read the Bible?
I have read the Bible. Excellent book.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 07:23 AM> Until God eliminates all uncivilized beings from the planet, I reserve the right to violently defend myself and my loved ones against the uncivilized.
That's problematic, huckleberry, because you are the uncivilized.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 08:11 AMHere is the NOAA's opinion about the weather (which differs somewhat from Stefan's meteorology):
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 08:28 AMThe combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.53°F (0.85°C) warmer than the 20th century average of 53.6°F (12.0°C) for January based on preliminary data, surpassing the previous record set in 2002 at 1.28°F (0.71°C) above the average. Last month's record was greatly influenced by a record high land-surface temperature, which was 3.40°F (1.89°C) warmer than average. Separately, the global ocean-surface temperature was fourth warmest in the 128-year series, approximately 0.1°F (0.05°C) cooler than the record established during the very strong El Niño episode in 1998.
A moderate El Niño episode that began in September 2006 continued into January, but weakened during the month. The presence of El Niño along with the continuing global warming trend contributed to the record warm January. Monthly mean temperatures more than 8°F above average covered large parts of Eastern Europe and much of Russia, and temperatures more than 5°F above average were widespread in Canada. The unusually warm conditions contributed to the 2nd lowest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent.
During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11°F (0.06°C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32°F (0.18°C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.
I am open to hear you clarify and set the record straight, but you have not attempted to do so and only resorted to hyperbole. Your sheer ignorance and lack of character amazes me..
Posted by: KS on February 16, 2007 08:35 AMHere is my answer to your question:
1. I am opposed to America killing Muslims.
2. I am opposed to Muslims killing Americans.
3. I am opposed to Sunnis killing Shias.
4. I am opposed to Shias killing Sunnis.
5. I am opposed to Israel killing its neighbors.
6. I am opposed to Israel's neighbors killing Israelis.
Any more questions?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 08:42 AMFrom the theological perspective it is clear that the GW alarmists depend as much on faith as any other religion.
That of course is the problem. Science doesn't work that way. In science, evidence beyond faith is necessary before an idea, no matter how well it fits with ones world view, becomes accepted theory.
It took many decades for plate tectonics to move from an interesting explanation of why the North and South American coastlines fit so well with so well with Europe's and Africa's to established theory. In the interim between when continental drift was first proposed and the late 1960's when Tuzo Wilson wrote his seminal paper, a lot of basic research was conducted that incrementally established the solid base of facts that defines the theory. Further research up to today has further solidified the theory.
Its been a century since Albert Einstein proposed his theory of relativity. Even after all this time there remain many well lettered scientists who dispute parts of that theory, atom bomb notwithstanding.
And what about history - what can it tell us about the current debate?
We have historic records dating back several thousand years that can be compared with the same temperature proxies used by GW's advocates. These show some interesting trends. For instance there were global warming peaks during the Roman Empire and again when Vikings explored. If we look at the temperture proxies for these two periods we find out that in both these periods the derived average temperatures exceed what we observe today.
Similar evidence of climatic periods warmer than today can be inferred from evidence of trade routes through the Alps (Remember the Ice Man!) that are only now becoming once again bare of ice and snow.
So it would seem that discussions of theoology and science do have some relevancy in this thread. Unfortunately, our friend DM chooses to only discuss those aspects of these these areas which have no relevance whatsoever to the topic.
Posted by: deadwood on February 16, 2007 08:46 AMGood point PBJ. I always love when Democats who claim Bush "lied" about WMD have to listen to the "lies" of their heroes. It's also amazing to me how they claim the Demcorats only thought there were WMD in Iraq because Bush told them. Despite all of these comments made before Bush was in office. Not to mention that they buy that the Democrats would ever believe Bush about anything...ever...at face value. Are they high? They Democrats have hated Bush every since he beat Gore. They still haven't gotten over that. They bashed him right up to 9/11. He go about a 6-month vacation from the political attacks after that, but they they ramped it right back up. No way they would have taken his word if they had any doubt. But they didn't, because their own research and the CLinton Administration came up with the same conclusions.
It's just stunning to me the duplicity in it.
I also find it ironic when the MSM has a republican on TV and ask something like, "The polls show that a majority of Americans disagree with the President's policies in Iraq, why is that?"
Ummm...duh...maybe because they've been fed a steady diet of negativity and defeatism for the past 3 years? When all most Americans hear on their evening news is how badly the war is going, and what a mistake it was, is it a wonder they think it was a mistake? I wonder what the American public would have thought about WW2 if that's all they every saw in the news about it? 6,500 Americans died in one day at Normandy??!!! What a collossal blunder! Impeach FDR!!! Adolf Hilter didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor! Why did the President drag us into the quagmire of Germany???!! We still haven't found Tojo!!!
"FDR Lied, people died!!"
heheheh...it's be funny if it weren't so true...
Posted by: Brent H. on February 16, 2007 09:25 AM
So when the model agrees with you it is absolutely correct but when they do not it is "climate is relatively young and incomplete".
Sorry Charlie. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to draw absolute conclusions based upon today's models, you cannot exclude them when it is convenient to do so.
Posted by: pbj on February 16, 2007 09:42 AMScientific investigation of Antarctica's climate is relatively young and incomplete. All models regarding how Antarctica might react to climate change are subject to substantial revision.
and his literal subscription of the opposite as shown in #60:
For those who want to argue about Antarctica, some rather disturbing news:Posted by: DopioLover on February 16, 2007 09:48 AMScientists sound alarm over melting Antarctic ice sheets
By Steve Connor, Science Editor in San Francisco
Published: 16 February 2007The long-term stability of the massive ice sheets of Antarctica, which have the potential to raise sea levels by hundreds of metres, has been called into question with the discovery of fast-moving rivers of water sliding beneath their base.
What have you done today? Have you had your steak yet?
Posted by: ferrous on February 16, 2007 10:04 AMIf there's a record snow fall - its consistent with GW.
If there's a cold snap - its consistent with GW.
Once you buy the pseudo-theory, the pseudo-scientists can sell just any variability in weather as being - yup guessed it - consistent with GW.
Posted by: deadwood on February 16, 2007 10:13 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003574774_warming16.html
Posted by: jb on February 16, 2007 10:13 AMThere is nothing new about this phenomenon. Glacialogists have known about it for at least as long as I have, and that dates back to the 1970's.
At that time I was working near Mt. Fairweather in the Alaska Panhandle area. One of the scientists I was working with at the time was doing research on this very subject using real live glaciers as the subject of his study. He was looking into why glaciers (and icesheets by analogy) would suddenly surge.
It seems that water builds up under the glacier and acts as a lubricant. Easy! Has nothing to do with temperatures and everything to do the the internal physics of thick moving slabs of ice.
If you track Robert Bindschadler's work back to NASA you will find the he doesn't try to make a case that his work supports GW, even though he is clearly a supporter. This is being done by GW alarmists who are mis-using and mis-representing his research as proof of their unfounded theory.
More grasping at straws?
Posted by: deadwood on February 16, 2007 11:36 AMOf course, you will NOT see anything regarding this month from MSM, if the temperatures play out as they have in the first half of February, because it does not affirm their Global Warming (GW) agenda or make it possible to them to manufacture blame on the Republicans. Expect a higher frequency of flatulent headlines about GW come out whenever an area of above normal temps are detected as Nov. 2008 approaches.
Vigilance of the crap detector system for the alternative media is essential to extract truth for the dumbed down masses who have been indoctrinated by the MSM's half-truths for years.
Posted by: KS on February 16, 2007 11:43 AMI'm waiting for the Malibu coastline elite to start moving out of their houses, because they've got the inside scoop from Al Gore on rising sea levels, and they know there land will soon be worth nothing.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 16, 2007 11:45 AMI like how these lefties will continually repeat consiously false statements until they become conventional wisdom and one becomes and unfeeling, unthinking nut for bucking this so-called "consensus."
Posted by: Devil Dawg on February 16, 2007 01:27 PMStick to the subjuect asshole!
Your religious bigot
Posted by: Bill on February 16, 2007 01:53 PMApparently, in David Mathews world, any sort of made up or misinterpreted "science" is enough to try to take control of our lives, freedoms and money.
Posts # 81 - 99
Hate to say it, people, but you conservatives are chasing your own tail. You affirm your ignorance and then justify inaction based upon said ignorance.
There's not much of an argument when the opposition has so little to say.
Let's wait for Stefan's next meteorological report. Then we'll see if the weather has changed.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 06:41 PMshe sayes:
Hate to say it, people, but you conservatives are chasing your own tail. You affirm your ignorance and then justify inaction based upon said ignorance.
she is a real disengenious human!
Posted by: Bill on February 16, 2007 07:07 PMshe sayes:
Hate to say it, people, but you conservatives are chasing your own tail. You affirm your ignorance and then justify inaction based upon said ignorance.
she is a real disengenious human!
Posted by: Bill on February 16, 2007 07:08 PMshe sayes:
Hate to say it, people, but you conservatives are chasing your own tail. You affirm your ignorance and then justify inaction based upon said ignorance.
she is a real disengenious human!
Posted by: Bill on February 16, 2007 07:08 PMIf you conservatives want to prove that you are not chasing your own tail then you probably should establish some certain scientific knowledge upon which to base your claims that humankind's pollution and environmental destruction does not harm the climate of the Earth.
What's your opinion regarding pollution, Bill?
Are conservatives pro-pollution?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 16, 2007 07:24 PMAsking this question at the end of what you posted shows that you are engaging in a logical fallacy (Affirming the Consequent). It is a perfectly consistent position to be skeptical of the claims of global warming without being "pro-pollution". You really shouldn't come into a forum like SP without some knowledge of the rules for valid argumentation and reasoning.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 18, 2007 08:45 AM> Asking this question at the end of what you posted shows that you are engaging in a logical fallacy (Affirming the Consequent). It is a perfectly consistent position to be skeptical of the claims of global warming without being "pro-pollution". You really shouldn't come into a forum like SP without some knowledge of the rules for valid argumentation and reasoning.
You are going through a lot of trouble in order to avoid answering the question. You would save yourself some time by simply answering the question.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 10:14 AM