Global Cooling...I just can't take it any longer!

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

And back in 1975,

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Why can't they get it right, I can't take it any longer!

 

I thing you're missing a point here. It's not about getting anything right. It's a scam regardless of how you package it. Weather the climate is warming or cooling is all the same as long as the gullible public beats their breasts and pays up for the "damage" they're doing. Even if it becomes obvious that it's all related to solar activity , some politicians will "fund" some scientists to spin it so civilized society is held liable. Don't doubt the stupidity of the masses, just look back in history. I'm afraid the climate cult is here to stay even if totally discredited. Some still believe the earth is flat.

 

I believe that each and everyone of us needs to be environmentally responsible. I believe that no one wants a "dirty" planet. But responsible environmentalism is a far cry from the fear tactics and what now appears to be half truths by a certain carbon producing ex US President. ;-)

 

IMO, the carbon producing ex-VP is a clever caplitalist who is using this effectively to earn $$.

 

I wouldn't mind him being a carbon producing capitalist using this to effectively earn money if like minded people would treat him that way. If a minister preaches against sin and then goes on to act the very way he admonishes others to not act he is disgraced and and removed from his pulpit. Al Gore preaches to the world the sins of carbon use and then goes on to live a carbon sinful life and his "congregation" simply worships him more and he makes more money.

 

Amen Brother!

 

I truly believe, and there is evidence in the files of the KGB to back it up, these environmental groups were created by the marxist left of the U.S. with funding from the KGB, for the sole purpose of undermining the U.S. economy and our GDP. Unforutnately, the fall of the Soviet empire did not also take with it the marxist left entrenched in the academia of the U.S. It has never been about the environment or science, its all been about anti-capitalism.

Now, the marxist left has captured the Democrat Party in the U.S. and our economy and national security are in jeopardy because of it. Not having the ability to produce the energy required for the national security of this nation is troubling to say the least. An unnecessary move from a fossil fuel economy to a "alternative energy" economy is both destructive to our economy and our ability to produce the means to secure our way of life.

There is no reason why we should not be energy independant by nuclear power and the use of our own very plentiful resources like natural gas, coal and oil. We have not been able to acomplish this due to the environmental movement. The same movement that has created the economic inflation associated with the artificial energy squeeze and the national security crisis of the middle east petro-empires.

Cue Obama and his marxist (Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Davis, Klonsky, et. al) connections to take over the government. A successful coop?

 

Regulated capitalism is good IMO. Unfettered capitalism tends towards monopolies, cartels and the short term exploitation of resources at the expense of many long term negative effects. As an example of environmental exploitation... if whales are hunted to extinction in a non-regulated world... the value of their produce increases as they become more rare, hence the motivation to cull them to extinction. If Asian peoples killed off all the male tigers (and the species) because their penises were worth tens of thousands of dollars... do you think that is good?

Do you really think that Alaskan oil is going to substitute, in the US, for the oil currently purchased from foreign sources?

As for the McCarthyism in the rest of your post... why is it that many University Professors are communists according to you? Are the majority of non-communists in the US discriminated against when applying for academic jobs? Are the non-communist professors not activists? Are people who lean right politically not smart enough to become professors? I suppose you could make the argument that smart capitalists tend to want to make more money than the typical wage of a professor. But that would just be telling us that if every smart person was a diehard capitalist... then we would either not have universities... or we would only have unintelligent people teaching there.

The only reason why our rivers and air are significantly cleaner than a 100 years ago is because of the environmental movement.

Unfettered/unrestricted capitalism to me is like football without rules or referees.

 

Uh-huh...yeah...you might want to lay off the dope, bro.

 

This is what is Orwell called doublethink. Double plus good, citizen.

 

Well the climate bill is dead. And now the blame game starts with the very predictable democrats blaming the republicans. But, how can they blame them?

For years we've heard how important it is to start reducing CO2, so I was sure that the Obama administration along with their overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate would put this issue as job #1, but it never was.

So why won't we see the democrats get blamed? I guess it's just our "free press" at work (for the dems).

After all, this issue is suppose to be crucial to the earth, humanity and not to mention our economy. So why was it put on the backburner? The democrats only have themselves to blame.

Climate bill blame game begins - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com


BTW, I never really cared about this GW crap, but I do want to see higher fuel prices so there are less cars on the road. After all, I am a cyclist

 

Yeah. That must be it. Uh-huh. That danged media.

 

O.K., fine, so you don’t see the media bias. But can you or anyone explain why this issue was placed on the back burner. After all, we all have been lectured to concerning all the dire consequences of global warming.

Such as,

• Ocean level rise. That in itself would be an economic disaster. We have so much infrastructure that would be laid to waste.
• Acidification of the oceans
• Negative effects on human health. This includes death from high temps, increased disease…
• Negative effects on agriculture, especially droughts. But also increased precipitation, i.e. flooding.
• Increased weather activity, such as higher intensity hurricanes…Again another economic burden.
• Extinction of numerous species.
• Loss of drinking water around the world.
• Increase in regional conflicts from withering agricultural crops.
• A threat to our national security

And the list goes on and on. So why did the dems decide not to pursue this issue when they had all the political capital that would be needed to pass a comprehensive climate bill?

I don’t expect you or anyone to have the answer, but you got to wonder. The economic consequences far exceed that of our health care problems, not to mention the negative effects to human health. So WTF…

BTW, I’m not coming at this from an ideological standpoint; I’m not a republican/conservative. I do question their stance/actions on other issues.

 

It's most likely they didn't feel they had the votes to prevent or end a filibuster.

 

I find it funny that the proper term was Global Warming until we had a couple of record cold winters, then it was changed to Climate Change. I don't think anybody really knows what is going on except Al Gore. He recently purchased a 3 million dollar home in Malibu, one that will be under water in the next ten years if his dire predictions come true. I'll bet he is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Please don't forget the Polar bears that are drowning by the thousands every day. I cry at night thinking about those poor helpless creatures floating on an ice burg not knowing that when that thing melts their dead. Oh god, excuse me, I got to go and change my shirt because it's drenched with my tears.

 

No, it was the anti-GW bunch that claimed cooling trends, but they did so with a very limited time span. Global Warming is still in use, as is Climate Change.

Joe Blow On the Street vs. the vast majority of climatologists: I'll put my money on the climatologists, as opposed to the poorly educated (in terms of science, math, and critical thought) public.

 

We've got a country that's grown up addicted to oil, cars, houses cooled to 72° in summer. Couple that with a hefty resistance to give up that to which the country's addicted, and you can start to see why it's not a top priority. Politicians collect "donations" from oil companies, energy companies, car companies, so they're easily convinced to not push on climate change or even sensible energy policies. Hell, fuel efficiency standards for cars are laughably low. The political atmosphere is highly polarized, right now, so there's no cooperation or frank discussion between parties about finding solutions to anything.

Americans, our countrymen, are corpulent in more ways than just girth and gluttonous in more ways than just appetite for food.

 

Vast majority of the climatologists that are funded by the Federal Government with grants, who if they don't do as their told will lose their funding. Nothing there that could suggest anything is there? And when they do express doubt this is what happens: E-Team: State Climatologists Attacked for Global Warming Doubts | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

Also read this: Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus - by Alan Caruba - Environment & Climate News

And in a brief summary of the facts here is 8 arguments against global warming: Arguments Against Global Warming, Evidence Against Global Warming - The Public Square

You all forget that just 350 years ago the scientific community all believed and agreed the world was flat.

Just recently we were told that antibiotic soap helps prevent us from getting colds and staff infections. That was proven wrong because we found out that when we us antibiotic soap we just grow stronger bacteria. Where was all the great scientists then?

For years we were taught there were only 30 classes of insects and that was a fact, then recently we discovered a new one so now there is 31.

The periodic table has 109 elements and that's a fact, a law of science...until 1994 when they had to add 6 more!

We were told to eat salt, then told not to, then told to eat more salt, now told not to...give it another 20 years and we'll be told to eat more.

And lets not forget these brilliant facts of science in the past 50 years:
Blacks have smaller brains than caucasions.
Blacks couldn't give blood transfusions to whites.
Leaches and bloodletting would cure anything.
Women are less intelligent than men.
Solar power doesn't work.

Yeah, I think I'll listen to the scientists who know everything.

 

Ah, I see. That must be it: the vast majority are funded by the Federal Government. That must include climatologists in England, France, Japan, Togo, and everywhere else. My, I had no idea that are Federal Government funded research in so many countries in the world. Being government funded doesn't mean that a study is biased.

I couldn't help but notice the common political bias of your links. You should try providing some objective analysis and proof.

Your rant about scientists is quaint. Scientists don't claim to know everything. That's why research happens. That's why there's continuing studies into climate change. Moreover, scientists are aware of science's history, and scientists (and engineers, for that matter) know that often theories have to be revisited and hypotheses modified. That's part of the scientific method. As such, science is self-correcting. You can cherry pick all the examples you want of "science gone wrong", but in all the examples you've given, science self-corrected. Despite your screed against science, you depend on it every day, more than you can even imagine.

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model

Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming

Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases

The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis

Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model

Global warming

A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems

Ecological responses to recent climate change

Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production

Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs

Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols

Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases

Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: an assessment of their relative roles in climate change