#1
These people are idiots. The next time you get into an argument with one of the global warming zealots, ask them, "Why do you think they call it Greenland?"
#2
In 1803 the French Academy of Sciences produced a report proving conclusively that stones falling from the sky is a mythos. And they didn't have computers to hide sloppy thinking under mountains of numerical simulation results
#3
...Heard a hysterical news report - on NPR, no less! - with the commentator reading from a 1974 issue of Time, which solemnly declared that there was no more need to investigate the climate changes that had so bedeviled the planet in the previous years - global cooling was a undeniable, irrefutable fact, and only massive changes in the way man lived and worked was going to avoid another ice age by the late 80s.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/02/2007 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The global warming zealots have probably been sucking on bovine gas.
#5
Mike when I was in grad school in the late 70's that was the accepted dogma. It actually was part of the nulcear winter scenario proposed by Carl Sagan and friends.
#6
CB...another obsure fact is that methane, the major component of bovine flattulence, is approximately 23x more effective than CO2 as a "greenhouse gas".
#7
Actually they called it Greenland to make other Norse think that Iceland must be much worse. In reality Greenland was the edge of habitable and Iceland quite comfy.... for a beserker, of course.
#9
Oh boo hoo. Even if all the ice melts (See Here) it is not gonna be that tragic. It ain't us, you damn UN think tank that wants to use this as an excuse to hobble America's economy.
#11
"Heard a hysterical news report - on NPR, no less! - with the commentator reading from a 1974 issue of Time, which solemnly declared that there was no more need to investigate the climate changes that had so bedeviled the planet in the previous years - global cooling was a undeniable, irrefutable fact, and only massive changes in the way man lived and worked was going to avoid another ice age by the late 80s."
yeah, cause there have been no improvements in climate modeling since 1974. And esp no improvements in computing power.
Or is it just the certainty you take issue with. Well they're your right. So, you can quote me on this, we CANNOT be 100% sure that man made global warming will take place.
That folks here on Rantburg, of all places, think you need 100% proof of a disaster to take steps to prevent it, is mindboggling
#13
I don't want 100% proof. 50% would do fine. How about a really good scientific study that isn't funded by leftists with all facts taken into account?
Oh, and there have been improvements to the computer power of the models. Just very little on the data that goes in. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Long term climate modeling still sucks.
#15
Its always good to delay action while you gather more data.
Posted by: Hans Blix ||
02/02/2007 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#16
IF one looks at evidence from geological ages (the last 500 My) one would see that the level of CO2 is currently at a low and has previously been 3-4 times as high as the current level.
I know, big IF for liberals and sundry haters of freedom.
#17
The climate variation over geological ages is far more dramatic than anything in the last 2000 years. I dont think we want macro changes like that.
Its like saying that on the scale of humanity from like 8000 BC, the govt of Saudi Arabia leans in the liberal direction. Compared to, you know, Bronze age Ur. Im more interested in the narrower range of variation over the more recent time period.
#19
I dont think anyones denied that. The question then becomes, how much of the recent rise in CO2 levels is due to human activity, and thats what recent studies have addressed.
#22
Most of the rise in CO2 in the last 250 years is very likely due to human action. So what?
The fact that CO2 levels have evolved WILDLY over the past millions of years is certainly not due to human action. So, do you, or Al Gore, or the UN, know why CO2 levels have changed so much in the past? do you, Al and the UN know whether CO2 changes correlated (one way or the other) with temperature changes over the last 500 MY? I know for a fact that you don't.
How a liberal jumps from the above to "global warming is caused by humans and will destroy Earth unless we destroy industrial civilization" is the weird part.
Temporary warming, if it is indeed happening, has happened before. This is why there have been Ice Ages, and the periods in between. None of the past cooling and warming has destroyed the Earth. And there is zero evidence that current human activity is CAUSING a temporary warming, if indeed it is happening.
There is however ample evidence that liberals and the UN are constantly seeking ways to shackle the West and destroy freedom.
#24
KKF hits this issue spot on. It is the hysteria that turns me many shades of sceptical. It reflects such hubris, odd for liberals I know. But it implicitly says that man controls or can control everything. That is just crap. Basically it is saying that man can control the weather, or actually something much more complex, the climate.
LH, you don't want the wild swings the earth has undergone in the past. Think about that statement. What if we are just going through another natural cycle? Do you think we can stop it or should we adapt to it? Me thinks the latter because that is what humans are good at.
The one positive of the screaming is that it will push major polluting entities to greener technologies. That is a good thing and will occur as those technologies become more developed/less expensive. But this crap about average temperatures going up 8 degrees in the next century is just so much BS.
I'd like to see all those wee wee makers in Paris focus on something that IS man made and CAN be reversed by changes in human activity...that would be managing fish stocks around the world. Forestation is another one. Both are things that we can impact directly and quickly for the good of the planet. Trying to control the climate is like trying to to catch a cloud.
#25
Right on, remoteman. Or, better still, we could put an end to the senseless killing of innocent people because of their chosen belief systems.
Like in Thailand, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia, the Philipines, and a plethra of other countries.
#26
KKF...The issue with CO2 is that no one...and I mean no one understands if excessive CO2 produces "global warming", or if "global warming" produces excessive CO2. Secondly no one understands how all of the major independent variables (e.g., mankind, industry, volcanos, natural greenhouse natural outgassing, etc.) interact, and the lag coefficients of all the CO2 sinks (CO2 in diatomaceous shell fragments and gaseous form in the ocean, etc.), and sources.
And liberalhawk...if the current deterministic, short-term numerical weather prediction models go unstable after 10 days....what does that say about global circulation models (GCMs) that run out centuries?
I can tell you one thing for absolute certain: The politics (and "religion") of the scientist drives the assumptions and parameterization for the GCMs. In almost all cases the preconceived, revealed-truth affects the parameterizations that in turn drive the models to justify the revealed truth. It is circular reasoning at its worst.
#27
The Tampa PBS station plays the BBC news program in the morning. They had one "expert" say that Greenland would be totally submerged by global warming. If my caculations are right the highest point in Greenland is 12,000 feet or 3700M.
If this was truly the case why not point out NYC, London, etc. are toast?
Posted by: bruce ||
02/02/2007 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#28
More of Greenland would actually be above water if the ice cap melted. The ice is actually pushing the center of the island down and if it was removed, you would get a rebounding effect. See map in post#9.
What we DO know is that plants love CO2. Most of them are starved for CO2 and grow much faster and better with higher levels of CO2. Most likely because they evolved at a time when CO2 was more PLENTIFUL in the atmosphere.
CO2 is a major nutrient for plants. Try to explain that to liberal anti-industrialists, Al, and the UN.
#30
Building on Kalle's point, when the plants, particularly trees, grow faster, they sequester CO2 for their lifespan. Which for temperate climate hardwoods is generally upward of half a century, and often multiple centuries. Part of the problem that's being ignored is the continued deforestation of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. In fact, as far as I know the only human-populated part of the planet that's been undergoing steady reforestation since the beginning of the 20th century is North America, specifically the U.S.
#31
Whoops! Accidentally hit Submit too soon. So perhaps if the oh-so-outspoken rest of the world would stop destroying their forests and jungles, and instead plant some bloody trees, the problem would diminish enough that they could stop fussing about this, and move on to their next cause du jour!
#32
It is the hysteria that turns me many shades of sceptical. It reflects such hubris, odd for liberals I know.
These people are more Calvinist puritans than political ideologues of any stripe. If there is any problem in the world, it is due to the evil in man. Man must pay for his sin. And as they have special knowledge of the Almighty's intentions, they should implement them here on Earth to make it the Kingdom come. If this were the 1690's they would be threatening heretical weathermen (and women) with the dunking chair.
The Rocket Scientist (real rocket scientist) asserts that AGM proponents don't understand modelling, that they would flunk Control System Theory 101 and that their practices are scientific only in the case where "scientist" is synonymous with "grant suckling".
#35
TW, reforestation is too easy a solution. It is one that is overtly controllable and, even worse, measurable. You need something amorphous and rather squishy so that you can continue to use it as a whipping horse until you move all of the world under the control of the "Idiots of Davos".
#36
How about we get all the die hard ecoloons to self darwinate! Then they'll no longer be contributing to the rising CO2 levels and they'll help ensure the lower population will have less impact.
We could have bumperstickers!
Protect Mother Earth! Kill yourself!
#37
"Destroy freedom" > other people's freedoms, NOT THEIR OWN. Toga Parties aside, I don't know or have heard of any Radical/Pol Activist that wants to go back to a US$1-4.00 minimum wage, do youse, back to a lower/minimalist-quality of life whilst still keeping what consumer goods they have now, iff not more??? As said before, NOT EVEN THE SOCIALISTS, etc aligned WANT SOCIALISM. The latter 'tis for "other people", NOT THEMSELVES.
Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.
The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim." Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?" The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.
Lewis, whose numerous books include the recent What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, would set no timetable for this drastic shift in Europe, instead focusing on the process, which he said would be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he elaborated, Europeans had given up.
"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism," said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.
This week the internecine warfare in Iraq, already bewildering -- Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurd vs. Arab, jihadist vs. infidel, with various Iranians, Syrians and assorted freelancers thrown into the maelstrom -- went bizarre. In one of the biggest battles of the war, Iraqi troops reinforced by Americans wiped out a heavily armed, well-entrenched millenarian Shiite sect preparing to take over Najaf, kill the moderate Shiite clergy (including Grand Ayatollah Sistani) and proclaim its leader the returned messiah.
The battle was a success -- 263 extremists killed, 502 captured. But the sight of the U.S. caught within a Shiite-Shiite fight within the larger Shiite-Sunni civil war can only lead to further discouragement of Americans, already deeply dismayed at the notion of being caught in the middle of endless civil strife.
There are of course many reasons for these schisms. Some, like the fundamental division between Sunni and Shiite, are ancient. Some of the wounds are more contemporary, most notably the social devastation and political ruin brought upon the country by 30 years of Saddamist totalitarianism and its particularly sadistic persecution of Shiites and Kurds.
America comes and liberates them from the tyrant who kept everyone living in fear, and the ancient animosities and more recent resentments begin to play themselves out to deadly effect. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the overwhelming majority of them killed by Sunni insurgents, Baathist dead-enders and their al-Qaeda allies who carry on the Saddamist pogroms.
Much of their killing -- the murder of innocent Shiites in their mosques and markets -- is bereft of politics. It is meant to satisfy instead an atavistic hatred of the Shiite heresy. The late al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was even chided by headquarters in Afghanistan for his relish in killing Shiites for the sport of it.
Iraqis were given their freedom and yet many have chosen civil war. Among all these religious prejudices, ancient wounds, social resentments and tribal antagonisms, who gets the blame for the rivers of blood? You can always count on some to find the blame in America. "We did not give them a republic,'' insists Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. "We gave them a civil war.''
Of all the accounts of the current situation, this is by far the most stupid. And the most pernicious. Did Britain "give'' India the Hindu-Muslim war of 1947-48 that killed a million souls and ethnically cleansed 12 million more? The Jewish-Arab wars in Palestine? The tribal wars of post-colonial Uganda?
We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?
Thousands of brave American soldiers have died trying to counter, put down and prevent civil strife. They fight Sunni insurgents in Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad, trying to keep them from sending yet one more suicide bomber into a crowded Shiite market. They hunt Shiite death squads in Baghdad to keep them from rounding up random Sunnis and torturing them to death. Just this week, we lost two helicopter pilots who were supporting the troops on the ground fighting the "Soldiers of Heaven'' outside Najaf to prevent the slaughter of innocents in a Shiite-Shiite war within a war.
Our entire strategy has been to fight one side and then the other to try to prevent sectarian violence -- a policy that has been one of the leading reasons why Americans are ready to quit and walk away. They can understand one-front wars, but they can't understand two-, three- and four-front wars, with Americans fighting any and all in sequence and sometimes in combination.
And at the political level, we've been doing everything we can to bring reconciliation. We got the Sunnis to participate in elections and then in parliament. Who is pushing the Shiite-Kurdish coalition for a law that would distribute oil revenues to the Sunnis? Who is pushing for a more broad-based government to exclude Moqtada al-Sadr and his sectarian Mahdi Army?
We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.
It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.
#3
It does make me unset that early on, in the war of terror, incredibly stupid ideas were left unchallenged until the perception became reality. The truth of America has no voice and everyone is just believing what they've been told by the MSM's terrorism "experts" and democrats.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/02/2007 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Charles Krauthammer always puts things into perspective. I don't think this guy has ever written an article that didn't make sense. If he has written something off base in the past 6 years I can't recall it.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
02/02/2007 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#8
We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.abortion!
#9
What an incredible summary of how mis-informed the American public is. And, how we, the American public, absolutely FAIL to pursue the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What a sad, want-it-now, fast-food, microwaved, short attention span country we live in. One that needs to be pampered, coddled and spoon fed news. Sometimes, parts of me wonder if our citizenry (I don't mean the principles of our nation) are even worth fighting for. The country (principles)? Hell yes! The citizenry? Hell no!
Posted by: BA ||
02/02/2007 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Agreed, BA, but when all is said and done, our problem is cultural and moral. The vast majority of Americans just can't tell right from wrong anymore.
#11
"We did not give them a republic,'' insists Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. "We gave them a civil war.''
Of all the accounts of the current situation, this is by far the most stupid. And the most pernicious.
I'm so glad to see Krauthammer smack Zakaria down. Zakaria's always had this insufferably smug attitude toward the war of "Things would have worked if Bush had only listened to me." He's a legend in his own mind.
#12
A GLOBAL JIHADIST/ISLAMIST STATE preplete wid PERENNIAL? SHIA-SUNNI VIOLENCE only shows, AGAIN, why Dubya=USA/Allies are in the ME and MUST STAY THERE UNTIL DEMOCRACY IS FIRMLY ENTRENCHED. Amers as a people don't care about ruling Nations or the World - they want $$$ and business. "The World" gener or roughly wants to be America - wanna be technical/legalist and blame someone, BLAME THEIR ANCIENT PHOENECIAN, EGYPTIAN, and INDO-SUMERIAN/SEMITIC/MESOPOTAMIAN ANCESTORS, OR AT LEAST THE ANCIENT GREEKS-AEGEANS, ETAL. FOR CAPITALISM AND MERCANTILIST COMPETITION. BLAME THE FIRST DESERT CHIEF WHOM TRADED HIS CAMEL, WIFE(S), KIDDIES, SERVANTS, ANDOR GOODS FOR SURVIVAL = POLITICAL POWER.
At a gas station one afternoon, I felt perfectly comfortable leveling a death-ray glare at the soccer mom behind me. I hated her simply for her passenger-free, fuel-sucking Land Rover which was certainly canceling out all my hybrid's hard eco-work. As she nervously studied the interior of her designer purse to avoid eye contract with the clearly psychotic woman facing her (me), I felt no guilt in wishing an eco-karma death for her. (Choking on her own fumes would be ironic, but swallowed whole by polar bears worked too.)
This is screaming hilarious!
Posted by: Mike ||
02/02/2007 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What's even more hilarious, in terms of overall pollution, counting gas and other consumables, these hybrids pollute more than hummers. Hi-tech plastics and heavy metals are far more eco-bad than plain steel. So while that hummer will rust away pretty quick, your lovely hybrid will outlast styrofoam and has the capacity to pollute the groundwater far worse.
#1
Here's the sentence that illustrates the divide between the NY Sun and pretty much any other newspaper out there:
"Our first thought was that Floridians are grown-ups possessed of rational minds and capable of making their own laws without the Times' haranguing."
The other guys' first thought is more on the order of "People are stupid and must be protected from themselves for the Greater Good!"
Here's a line you'll either recognize or you won't: "This is one time where television really fails to capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather." If you don't recognize this little gem, you've either never seen Groundhog Day or you're not a fan of what is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the last 40 years. As the day of the groundhog again approaches, it seems only fitting to celebrate what will almost undoubtedly join It's a Wonderful Life in the pantheon of America's most uplifting, morally serious, enjoyable, and timeless movies.
. . . I know what you're thinking: We're talking about the movie in which Bill Murray tells a big rat sitting on his lap, "Don't drive angry," right? Yep, that's the one. You might like to know that the rodent in question is actually Jesus at least that's what film historian Michael Bronski told the Times. "The groundhog is clearly the resurrected Christ, the ever-hopeful renewal of life at springtime, at a time of pagan-Christian holidays. And when I say that the groundhog is Jesus, I say that with great respect."
That may be going overboard, but something important is going on here. What is it about this ostensibly farcical film about a wisecracking weatherman that speaks to so many on such a deep spiritual level? . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/02/2007 09:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
David Machlis and Tovah Lazaroff
by Jonah Goldberg, National Review
