Saturday, December 09, 2006

More global warming please?


I love when I see this map filled with cold...
Thanks Drudge for putting this up and allowing me to make liberals mad...

Posted by The Game at 1:53 AM

13 comments:

jhbowden said...

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!

If global warming was real, liberals would be for higher gas prices to curb emissions.

Wait-- liberals were against higher gas prices last summer. If *liberals* think that global warming is only feel-good moral crusader fluff, how are the rest of us supposed to interpret their agenda?

December 09, 2006 12:18 AM
Jim said...

Global warming is a hoax and now Drudge has proved it!

You people are hilarious. You think that the extreme cold weather in the southeast US PROVES that global warming is false? Well, that shows how much effort you put into the subject: Very little except to listen to Drudge and Inhofe.

The earth doesn't simply warm up all over the globe at one time. As you may have learned in school or in actually reading scientific material, the earth is a very complex system, and temperature changes have profound effects on different regions of the globe at different times as nature tries to balance itself.

Have you seen pictures of the Alps lately? Did you know that melting of ice shelves can have drastic effects on the salinity of the oceans and can affect the upwelling of colder or warmer currents deep beneath the ocean surface?

Apparently you don't because you only read Drudge and Inhofe about how the "hockey stick" is flawed. And that's your entire arguement.

December 09, 2006 12:02 PM
The Game said...

Global warming is a natural occurance and the fact that you and other scientist use very, very, very poor and insignificant data shows that this issue is political

December 09, 2006 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...

Every time someone points at the cold and says it cant be getting warmer, globally, They should have to start their education all over at first grade. If you dont actually know anything about the phenomenon, do yourself a favor and just remain mute.

December 09, 2006 5:40 PM
Marshal Art said...

Well, Game, you did it. You made the liberals mad. Not much of a challenge, though.

December 09, 2006 6:01 PM
Jim said...

Strange how 99% of the world's climatologists support global warming on this so-called "very, very, very poor and insignificant data" and 1% refutes that with sudden cold snaps and the same old "faulty hockey stick" graph.

I doubt you can tell me in your own words what the "hockey stick" is, what it means, and why it is or isn't valid.

December 09, 2006 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...

Why should I believe Jim when he says that '99% of the world's climatologists support global warming'?

Furthermore, if it's really true, can Jim or his ilk give me any sensible reason why I should care? Are they trying to say that I have some duty to care about the future of human society and the earth's ecology? If so, who gave me that duty? I'm waiting...

December 09, 2006 6:55 PM
Jim said...

I must assume, doc, that you are being sarcastic.

December 09, 2006 8:26 PM
Marshal Art said...

I, on the other hand, would like to see the poll, and the results thereof, that are cited by those like Jim who enjoy saying things like, "99% of the world's climatologists support global warming..." There's a lot of climatologists in the world, I'm betting, and I've never heard of any empirical data showing so many buy into the global warming scam. Now, if you said that that many climatologists say we're in the midst of a warming period such as the earth has experienced before, that's different. But of course, when we discuss this subject here, we're referring to the AlGore type studies which insist that mankind is causing it and needs to repent of it's evil greedy practices in order to reverse the trend, as if it could.

December 09, 2006 10:36 PM
The Game said...

its more like 50/50...and I know this graph doesn't prove or disprove global warming...the crappy data does...this graph had one purpose and it did its job

December 10, 2006 1:56 AM
Ron said...

I am totally confused as to why the right has such a hard on on this issue. Why not lower emmissions that set the balance of nature off course even if it isn't causing global warming...or are you that irresponsible? Oh I forgot, it might cost money and you guys don't want to spend on anything but total war.

December 12, 2006 11:51 AM
PCD said...

Ron, why not use solid science instead fo flim/flam? Most Global Warming advocates can't answer simple questions objecting to the Global Warming hysteria. Talk about "speaking truth to power", or is that only meant to be liberals who have done nothing mouthing off to elected Republicans?

1. most global warming claims come from computer models, yet the same models can not forcast or report accurately temperatures and trends outside a narrow band of years used to "prove" global warming.

2. One volcanic eruption puts more clor0-flurocarbons into the atmosphere than man has created and released, so why is man the problem, other than being the focus fo blame for anti-capitalist Luddites?

3. in the 60s and 70s the same data was used to predict an impending ice age. Where are these glaciers???

4. This spring, the eco-freaks predicted the worst hurricane season ever? This was another dud.

December 12, 2006 1:10 PM
Marshal Art said...

Ron,

I don't think that most people, business owners, etc., have a problem with taking steps to prevent polluting the earth. Since that PSA with the crying Indian, I believe much has been done to clean up what mess there was, as well as prevention. But money is an issue, particularly when it's money former employees no longer have due to costs choking business. Technology has advanced quite a bit and there are methods for clean up that are pretty good. What is left to be done has to take into account the costs in terms jobs, product and service pricing, and to just force a business to close until some hippie environmentalists are satisfied is irrational.

The argument in the GW debate is how much of it is caused by mankind and if it's legitimate to meddle in corporate practices over actions that have no real impact.

The greenies like to insist that Earth is a fragile planet. I don't buy it. After the Exxon Valdez spill, the predictions of decades of environmental horror failed to appear as the clean-up went quickly. In other places, lakes and streams "healed up" rather quickly after simply stopping the polluting.

There seems to be a nasty habit on the left of taking these things to irrational extremes. When lefties scream about giving money for AIDS, for example, and then they are informed of just how much is being given, it's not uncommon for them to say it's not enough. The same dynamic plays out with GW. No matter how much is done, it's not enough to satiate the doom and gloomers. For too many of the left, public whining is their means of action and proof of their concern. And it doesn't cost them much more than the whining, because they expect more from the government.

OK, I'm rambling now. I'll stop.

December 12, 2006 10:28 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)