Subscribe by RSS
Just hold the election today and we’ll wait until January to swear in the winner. That way the insanity that happens during election season can be done with. I am telling you, politicians get crazy when their job is on the line. Think of it this way, why is the federal government sending out “free money” in the form of an “Economic Stimulus Package?” I’ll tell you why, because they like buying votes with other people’s money.
Of course, Obama, Clinton, and McCain, all had to sign on to some type of “bailout” for homeowners suffering from a choice to not read their mortgage terms. Had this not been an insane election year, I’m doubting we’d have as much ridiculousness amongst the politicians. Of course you always have the nuts running around trying to handout taxpayer money but it’s nowhere near the Niagara Falls-like rush that occurs during a presidential election.
Changing the subject a bit, global warming has been a big topic this election cycle as well. So big in fact, that we all watch Obama, Clinton, and McCain talk about it and then get back on their buses, SUVs, and private jets to go to another event and tell more people about the “plight” of global warming. Never mind that the winter of 2007-2008 was one of the coldest on record, but don’t let facts get in the way of a good liberal argument. Furthermore, a new report showed NASA’s satellites recording a bout of global cooling:
A century of solar warming has ended; our planet is cooling.
NASA’s eight weather satellites recorded global cooling of .7 degree Celsius during the last year. The temperature decline nearly erased the one degree Celsius global warming of the previous 100 years.
In addition, record cold temperatures were recorded during the year in Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Chile, and Argentina. China had its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad experienced its first snow in recorded history. The winter snow coverage in North America was the most in 50 years.
The current global cooling is consistent with the two-year absence of sunspot activity observed by Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher for Canada’s National Research Council. Tapping warns that a three-year succession of no sunspots, called a Maunder Minimum, has invariably preceded an extended period of cooling.
The Maunder Minimum of 1650, the most recent, was followed by 35 frigid winters, summers, major crop failures and famine.
Will Obama, Clinton, or McCain acknowledge the slightest possibility that our planet naturally warms and cools? Of course not, that would be downright sane and logical.
Unfortunately for anyone who enjoys intellectual honesty, scientific freedom, and the examination of facts, all three of the current candidates believe in man-made global warming and they believe it’s the biggest threat currently facing mankind. That alone is proof enough that we basically have three Democrats remaining as candidates now. Ignore the fact that the earth has gone through cooling and warming for thousands of years, it doesn’t fit into the latest media fad.
Furthermore, because politicians, including our lovely presidential candidates, have all lost their friggin’ minds, I soon will not be able to purchase the type of light bulb I prefer. Why is this you ask? Well it’s a little known fact that recent legislation will soon outlaw the incandescent bulb and force us all to buy mercury-containing compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs. Do keep in mind that if the CFL bulb should break, you are to leave the room for an hour and let the mercury dissipate. That’s not a joke or exaggeration either. Obama, Clinton, and McCain all seem to be just peachy with this and buy into the insanity.
My point in all this, besides ranting, is that I am ready for the election to be held today. Either way we’re all going to be screwed into environmental fascism. Why is that liberals scream bloody murder over the Bush administration allegedly “stealing their freedom” yet they swoon with glee when the federal government literally does steal their freedom by telling them what kind of light bulb they can buy, what kind of gasoline they can use, or what kind of car they can drive?
Then again, that’s right, stealing our freedom is fine with liberals as long as it fits their agenda. In the case of the ‘08 election, each candidate supports the environmental fascism that is slowly coming upon us. That is, unless, the fraudulent hucksters pushing the global warming propaganda are exposed as the charlatans they truly are.
As such, I implore John McCain to drop his bid for the presidency and immediately instruct his delegates to support Fred Thompson.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
CG, it seems your views on the economy, environment and politics are all minority opinions but among this country’s academics, and world experts in the differing areas. This does not mean they are less substantial, but I am noting a trend.
It would do you well to investigate the sources you use for issues such as global warming. The source you cited in your commentary does not represent NASA; it actually misrepresents NASA’s information. The excerpt is from an opinion letter by a Dr. Richard C. Schmidt, adjunct professor in economic geography at McGill University, Canada.
According to official NASA sources, 2007 was actually VERY hot:
Michael, let me share with you with one of my favorite websites:
Global Warming Hoax
They are non-partisan and simply dedicated to exposing the truth on the subject, without a political agenda. Unfortunately though, if you refute the concept of man-made global warming, you are often accused to having a “political agenda.” That’s a two-way street.
However, I am often astounded that we are told to accept man-made global warming without question. That hardly seems scientific. Especially considering the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Earth goes through warming and cooling periods, always has, always will.
Plus, I’m wondering how you can downplay someone’s opinion by pointing out it stands contradictory to the academic community? Sounds like you’re trying to say that the “majority” opinion is always right on issues. Sort of the, “this many people can’t be wrong” mindset. Letters and degrees next to one’s name does not equate infallibility, that’s for certain.
I actually found your response to be a bit offensive to anyone who may hold an opinion which varies from “world experts” as you put it. Please keep in mind, these “experts” are all imperfect human beings meaning they too, at times, will be wrong.
If we’re all supposed to fall in line with the academic community and “world experts,” then where is the debate on an issue? If we’re all stuck in group-think then I fear for the future of humanity as you seem to be proposing we should be lemmings following these so-called “world experts.”
The discussion certainly isn’t over, despite what Al Gore says.
Nate - no website is absent of an ‘agenda’ or detached from politics, particularly one about a political viewpoint such as global warming.
I did not get into the game of arguing for or against global warming– I made sure specifically not to do that in my response. Conservative Gal, however, did make an argument against global warming and used data that I found faulty. I only addressed that, nothing more. I am all for discussions, investigations, and reviews, and I agree we should not simply follow what learned professionals say, but rather take them under strong advisement (as CG did with her reference of a professor from McGill in her commentary).
I don’t see why we would ignore the implications of global warming at all. Why not take measures to clean up the planet, as the rest of the civilized world seems to believe is a good idea.? Conservative Gal, are you really that attached to the incandescent light bulb? You feel the need to preserve costly, dirty, and outdated methods of fueling, global warming or not? In the name of freedom? Nonsense.
You point out the ironies of the candidates fuel costs, yet shortly afterward begin bemoaning the coming environmental “fascism”. Which is it: Environmental policy change right now or never?
Lastly, the only semi-point you have: global warming is a misnomer. This doesn’t mean is does not exist. Human industry is causing climate change, which doesn’t necessarily mean warming. It can mean winters resembling the Ice Age and summers rife with drought, hurricanes, and tornadoes, and floods. The more you remain fixed in your position, the more you resemble someone from the 15th century who thinks the world is flat.
Why is the conservative movement in America so fused to ignorance and a lack of common sense, often prefaced by faith and freedom but usually stemming from fear and obstinance?
Or, in a less offensive way, I ask for someone to explain the conservative agenda in a way that makes sense to me and isn’t flawed logically and psychologically disturbing.
Michael Anichini: From recent debates at the United Nations, we can see some concerted and articulate points against global warming from conservatives. However, none of this has been about the earth getting colder. Recent substantiated debates are over whether the climate changes are man-made or not.
Most conservative arguments explain that there is a economic agenda for professors and researchers around the world. They continually need to fund their projects, and the worldwide hype over global warming allows for repetitive funding to investigate these matters. It then goes that grant money is used to support initial arguments that are already biased toward a specific result. See my recent commentary on the liberal bias in academics for a background on this.
Another point of contention is that conservatives feel there is a fear-factor played into politics. They cite academic reports for the last several decades talking about an impending ecological apocalypse, and that this pushes people to react based on fear instead of hard definitive facts.
I have seen arguments based around the need for cities, and that suburbs are the actual bane of the environment (thus, we should promote business). Other arguments equate man-made C02 emissions to cow flatulence. There is also a religious theme played throughout most conservative arguments: That it is audacious to think we, as humans, can really affect the earth in this way.
These are not my views, so if there are conservatives out there that feel I have misrepresented them, please correct me.
Michael,
We have had extensive offline discussions regarding Human Global Warming and never once did I bring up religion nor have I heard anyone make their sole claim against human global warming based on religion. Oh, I’m sure someone has said that, but you know darn well that is a complete distortion of the overall conservative consensus.
Michael Anichini,
You are extremely misinformed. Human global warming and pollution are two very different issues and you should be careful not to confuse the two. I love how global warming has now become climate change. That way, the liberal argument is covered on all sides. If it’s cold, it’s climate change, if it’s hot it climate change. I guess when the earth has one median temperature throughout the year you will be happy? Wait…wait, the wind just blew….must be that darn climate change/warming or whatever you want to call it these days.
Nate,
There’s a reason why one should respect academics’ opinions on this matter more than the rest of the world. Meteorology and climatology are both rigorous sciences that take years of study to fully comprehend. Reading a few opinion pieces in the WSJ written by Exxon hacks does not make you an expert on the issue nor as equally qualified to comment on the nature of global warming as climate scientists.
Do you know what the “two-stream approximation” is? Do you know why it is that stratospheric cooling indicates solar irradiance doesn’t play a role in the current warming trend? Do you know why the 9.4- and 10.4-micron absorption bands of carbon dioxide are so essential to Earth’s LTE temperature? Do you even know what “LTE” means, and under what conditions it’s applicable?
These are the kind of topics a rigorous climate background teaches, and are absolutely essential to fully understanding the global warming debate. Without them, you’re just parroting talking points from partisan authors. Similarly, I wouldn’t trust my own opinions on cancer research over a cancer researcher with an M.D.; I don’t know why you’d expect climate science to be any different.
For example, if the author of the original article had done a little research instead of posting the first knee-jerk conservative talking point about 2008’s low temperatures, she would know the low temperatures have nothing to do with the current solar minimum. They are caused by La Nina, a periodic oceanic circulation phenomenon indicated by a steep thermocline in the waters of the equatorial Pacific. Such a phenomenon regularly occurs after years of El Nino (which did occur in 2007). Superimposed on this cyclic trend is a steady increase of temperatures that has little to do with the Sun’s regular 11-year sunspot cycle over such time.
This is absolutely not a Maunder minimum. Such a phenomenon means 50 years of irregularly low sunspot numbers, and climate effects are only noticed 25 years into such a minimum. There has been no such observed secular change to the regular periodicity of sunspot cycles. I repeat, one year of decreased temperatures during a La Nina event is not a Maunder minimum.
The globalwarminghoax website you posted is strewn with scientific inaccuracies far too numerous to count. If you’d like specific examples on any given article, I’d be more than happy to oblige.
Oh, one follow-up to this:
Various incarnations of the article quoted in the original post have been circling around the conservative blogosphere…enough, in fact, to elicit a personal email from Kenneth Tapping himself (the quoted scientist). Here it is:
“The article is rubbish.
I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or where the tipping point may be.
The lateness of the start of the solar activity cycle is not yet enough to be something to worry about. However, even if we were to go into another minimum, and the Sun dims for a few decades, as it did during the Maunder Minimum, it could reduce the problem for a while, but things will come back worse when the cycle starts again.
We are looking at the downside of the freedom of the web. Its freedom extends to bad information being circulated.
Regards,
Ken”
Mr. Climatologist:
So you are saying that since we don’t have a background in Climatology we can’t have an educated discussion on climate? I have an engineering degree and have taken thermodynamics, will you allow me to address you sir? By the way, LTE is local thermodynamic equilibrium. Can I ask you a question. How much grant money have you received? If so, where did your grant money come from? Where did you do your research? Are you even a climotologist or do you just spew out talking points from some obscure website? Please enlighten us O’ magnificent one.
Ah, Stalin, I’ve seen you’re argument before.
First, you never address any of the scientific points I raised. Either you’re perfectly comfortable with the conclusions I stated, or else you don’t have the climatological background to challenge them. I’m guessing the latter…which is precisely my first point. You can’t address the argument on substance, so instead you resort to cheap ad hominem attacks (Oh yeah? Where do you get your money, Mr. Fancypants? I bet you aren’t even a real climatologist!).
I never said you *can’t* have an educated discussion, but by definition you first have to be educated…something that most in the blogging echo chamber just simply don’t bother to do. Yes, that goes for both left- AND right-wing pundits. Taking thermodynamics is a step in the correct direction. If you’d like to continue down that track, I’d recommend you check out “An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology” by Holton as well as “Planetary Science” by de Pater and Lissauer. That should give you some requisite mathematical and scientific tools to grasp the basic concepts of global warming.
I get my grant money from NASA, and make much, much less than those in the climate community who get their money from the ExxonMobil disinformation campaign….and you’ll never guess what their conclusions are! I’d prefer not to give away any more personal information given the vindictive nature of the internet.
Mike,
I didn’t comment on your points because you really didn’t say much. All the high and mighty self admiration aside, let’s look at what you actually said about global warming:
1) Our current cooling period is due to La Nina:
If you look on the NOAA website, they say:
“What are the U.S. impacts of La Niña?
La Niña often features drier than normal conditions in the Southwest in late summer through the subsequent winter. Drier than normal conditions also typically occur in the Central Plains in the fall and in the Southeast in the winter. In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is more likely to be wetter than normal in the late fall and early winter with the presence of a well-established La Niña. Additionally, on average La Niña winters are warmer than normal in the Southeast and colder than normal in the Northwest.”
So some areas are warmer and some cooler, so I don’t think that your overriding statement that the cooler year we’ve had can be attributed to 100% to La Nina.
2) We are not experiencing a Maunder minimum:
The Maunder minimum was an event that took place in the 17th century and lasted approximately 70 yrs. There was also the Sporer Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Oort Minimum, all of varying lengths. Is it not possible that we have entered another sort of minimum? October of 2007 saw the least amount of sun spot activity since June of 1986. After that you have to go all the way back to Sept. of 1954 to see activity that low. I went through the the actual data myself. Yes, I know all about the 11.1 year cycle and it may very well be attributed to that. Can you at least open yourself to the possibility that we might be entering a period of decreased solar activity?
Now my question about your grant money is because I want to know what your incentive is to perpetuate the idea of global warming. If global warming was proven false, would you lose your funding? You go on about Exxon, but there are plenty of “Climatologists” that have quite a bit riding on global warming as well…
On a final note, I might recommend a book for you. It’s called, Humility: The Forgotten Virtue, by Wayne Mack
Hmm, I’ve seen your other posts here, and there’s always a generous serving of snark in them…yet you’re recommending humility lessons for me. “Hi Pot, this is Kettle calling.”
Ok, let’s put the ad hominem arguments to bed. You do raise some good, valid, scientific points:
1) Note that you’re only quoting local effects in the USA, which only accounts for a very small percentage of the surface of the entire Earth. La Nina’s main feature is colder-than-average sea surface temperatures over the equatorial Pacific, which spans a much greater surface area.
Obviously the global climate is an extremely complex system - some areas will warm and others will cool, but the net effect is a global cooling overall when averaged per square kilometer.
2) Sure, it’s entirely possible we’ll enter a new minimum at some point; my point is that it’s way too early to start calling it that now, much less blaming the past few cold months on it. Earth doesn’t respond immediately to solar variation (it has what’s known as “thermal inertia”), so even if we’re a year or two into such a minimum, we shouldn’t be seeing the cooling effects just yet.
Over and above that, though, solar minima are usually preceded by what’s known as a “phase catastrophe”, where the sunspot number erratically fluctuates outside of the usual 11-year cycle. Although no new sunspots are forming yet, we’ve already seen the solar magnetic field flip (part of the larger 22-year Hale cycle) which heralds the next impending group of sunspots.
3) Funding-wise, a disproof of anthropogenic global warming would be a non-issue for me - I actually study climatology on planets other than Earth. If anything, I’d expect to see a boost in funding; if Earth’s climate only depended on solar variation, then other planets with lower thermal inertia could be used a good proxy for any climate change Earth would eventually experience.
However, I’m intimately familiar with Earth’s climate phenomenon not just because of analogies to other planets, but because the Earth climate modelers usually have the best toys. Whenever we want to implement a new atmospheric phenomenon, we usually check if Earth modelers have implemented something similar since they’re approximately 5 years ahead of us, technology-wise. In fact, the Earth problem requires that their models have to be the best of all planets.
When you get deep into it, understanding Earth’s climatology turns out to be a harder problem than the climatology of all the other planets because you have an interaction of three different media - air, water, and land - each with it’s own unique properties.
The air is difficult because Earth is only one of two partly cloudy planets; understanding cloud formation’s effect on climate is one of the holy grails of climate science. The sea is difficult because you have surprisingly high-frequency alternating latitudinal jets in the ocean (it’s actually more similar to Jupiter’s atmosphere) coupled with a circulation due to salinity. The land is difficult because just when you get a good jet going in the ocean, it encounters coastline, which more often than not is a surface with high fractal dimension…and that’s not even getting into the more typical difficulties posed by terrain and albedo variations.
I agree with Stalin, enough said.
Mike,
I’m sorry if my “snarky” comments get to you, but I’m just having fun. Your comments come off as being very arrogant and condecending. But enough of that, back to business.
1) Do you have any data that say La Nina causes a net global cooling effect. I’m not trying to be a pain, but I am really interested.
2) I agree that it is way too early to call this a new solar minimum, but I am very happy you are willing to consider it. Many people I have talked to only look at the human factors of global warming and are not willing to consider other factors.
3) I couldn’t agree more with this statement:
“When you get deep into it, understanding Earth’s climatology turns out to be a harder problem than the climatology of all the other planets because you have an interaction of three different media - air, water, and land - each with it’s own unique properties.”
It drives me nuts when people make blanket statements about climate without understanding how amazingly complex it is.
Well I guess I will be the one to bring up this issue since everyone else is too much of a coward to do so. Here’s all the evidence I need.
Genesis 8:22, we’re told of a promise by God never to use global floodwaters again as a means of destroying life on Earth. In that promise, the Bible explicitly states:
“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” What does this mean? It means God controls the world’s temperature, not man. God controls the climate, not man. God controls the earth’s “eco-system,” not man.
God controls our environment, not man. In the words of Joseph Farah:
Call me shallow, my argument weak, I could care less. Say that this is typical Conservative talking points, it won’t phase me, if there’s one thing that I will never be ashamed of it’s my Christianity. And news flash, you don’t have to be a conservative to read the word of God.
Can we really say that “global warming” is the greatest issue our nation and world faces? I think not.
Wow, Conservative Girl, you scare me.
There’s several categories of global warming deniers out there. I have no problem debating global warming with intelligent conservatives on its scientific merits, like Stalin. It’s easy to ignore the 13-year-old trolls and their “ZOMG!! Al gOre sUxorz!”. However, the one attitude that absolutely and completely terrifies me are those bible literalists who choose to utterly ignore logic and scientific reasoning because a book written several thousand years ago told them that they didn’t have to worry.
You obviously use computers and the internet, and I’m willing to bet you use a car, your microwave, and antibiotics - all items derived through the benefit of scientific reasoning. Why cherry-pick your science? I’m willing to bet you don’t believe in evolution, either…Do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, too? If you’re willing to deny science in this case, why not just become a Luddite and go live in the woods?
Conservative Gal, your argument isn’t just weak, it’s dangerous. Just because you can hide your head in the sand doesn’t mean you’re safe.
Stalin,
I’m pretty sure you won’t have access to full climate journal articles with relevant La Nina info unless you work at a university (I know, that part is really dumb). That said, though, here’s a pretty decent trend of global temperatures over the past 25 years with El Nino and La Nina events marked. Note that El Nino events are consistently warmer than the 5-year time-averaged trend, while La Nina events are consistently colder. The one notable exception to this is when Mt. Pinatubo went off - a very sizable volcano which put a lot of aerosols into the stratosphere resulting in a global cooling even during an El Nino event.
http://www.globalwarminga.....Record.png
CG: you’re use of religious doctrine makes your argument extremely problematic. I do not want to get into the history or long drawn out reasons why it is problematic, so I will leave it with a few points to consider:
1) modern Biblical scholars believe the Pentateuch was written in the 6th century BCE (so orally transmitted for many years beforehand), as opposed to earlier thoughts that place it in 1400 BCE.
2) Since that time period, there have been a lot of (mis)translations of the texts, and enough evidence to show multiple authors in books such as Genesis. For instance, the first line of the book of Genesis is mistranslated into English as “In the beginning,” when it should read, “In a beginning,” since classical Hebrew has definite and indefinite articles. Problems like this in the book of Genesis display why using the Bible, or at least the Pentateuch, as an historical/scientific text is extremely problematic.
If you want to read your religious text, read it in the original language (and know that even then, it was both a translation and alteration from an oral tradition). If you want your faith in a religious text to govern your worldview, it’s good to develop a deeper knowledge of them. Again, to keep this short, I’ll stop here.
Typical liberal response Mike. It’s alright that I “scare” you. Most Christians do scare neo-pagans like yourself. What scares me more is people who go along trusting science like a religion, which is what you’re doing. You call people “deniers” which seems fascist to me, but hey, you’re the enlightened one. Don’t liberals want “open dialog,” or does that only count when they agree with your lemming group-think?
I’ll tell you what’s dangerous, following blindly lockstep down the road of Al Gore and other frauds pushing science which is nowhere near proven correct. What’s dangerous is calling anyone who disagrees with you a “denier.”
I don’t deny science, I deny junk science, which is what global warming is. I embrace science which is studied intelligently. I respect science which examines an issue and does not squash dissent, which is what you’re doing. You are asking me to digest global warming and pretend I don’t see all the contrary evidence, which is what you have chosen to do. I have chosen to think for myself and read everything I can on the topic. Since I have done so, I know man-made global warming is a complete farce, the earth goes through cooling and warming trends, always has.
You try to play the boogey man game by using hurtful words that you think will harm me. Statements like “I have no problem debating global warming with intelligent conservatives on its scientific merits”, this may shock you to know that someone like myself, the stupid, uneducated, conservative girl will soon hold a doctorate. No, how can that happen? The funniest thing is that I will never need to seek your scientific mind, but if you’re ever sued, need to officiate a will, buy a home, or need legal advise, you will be seeking someone in my profession. Just remember that us Christians are everywhere, places that you least expect it, yes even lawyers, you can’t escape us.
Interesting. You claim the error of my ways is my supposed dogmatic adherence to global warming, which stems from clinging to science like a religion…never mind, of course, that your dogmatic adherence to denying global warming comes from clinging to religion itself.
I love the conservative buzzwords - “neo-pagan”, “group-think” (reading your Ayn Rand lately?), and best of all, “junk science”. Need I remind you the article you originally posted in this thread has been discredited by the quoted scientist? Who’s embracing junk science?
For the record, I’ve also already stated that I appreciated open dialogue over global warming’s scientific merits…none of which, of course, you actually mention, other than recycled conservative talking points. “The earth goes through cooling and warming trends, always has,” you say. Heard it before, and it’s still a logical fallacy: false cause. Multiple different causes can lead to the same effect.
Here’s a little science lesson for you - go read about stratospheric cooling and what it means for anthropogenic warming. On the other hand, I know all that math must be really hard to understand - maybe it’s better to just have partisan hacks tell you how to think.