"Resistance Is Futile.
You Will Be Assimilated!"
GW will burn your skin too!

Posted by Michael Hawn at September 3, 2006 08:43 PM

Global warming is a crock based on junk science. This is great.

Posted by Cao at September 4, 2006 04:59 AM

Due to the fact that our hurricane season has been downgraded twice in as many months I predict that our weather and climate will become largely unpredictable. Oh wait .....

Posted by Oyster at September 4, 2006 08:26 AM

I predict that the GW idiots will soon change the object of their insanity from Global Warming (GW) to Global Climate Change (GCC). That way they don't have to change their signs and placards for the next rally based upon what the global climate is doing at the moment. As Bugs Bunny would say ... "What a bunch of maroons!"

Posted by Vulgorilla at September 4, 2006 08:44 AM

Resident troll Mark York frequently refers us to RealClimate.org, which is run by people with science backgrounds. I stopped by there the other day to see how they handled inconsistencies in the global warming claims, and it boiled down to excuses and rationalizations. When studies proved faulty, they would explain the error BUT NEVER revise its claims. The difference between skeptics and those like the people of Real Climate is that skeptics are more objective.

Here's another recent article that just came out about how "climate scientists" have lowered their disaster forecasts--of course, only after they have passed along their hysteria.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html
In the article, we learn that the cost to fight global warming in Austrailia (the country of source of the article) would be a real decrease in wages of 20%--which represents a hidden tax by way of government mandate that accomplishes nothing, since the best that we can hope for from controls is a 5% reduction in carbon emissions when scientists say that we need at least 60%. Would you be willing to take a 20% cut in pay when it wouldn't accomplish anything?

Makes you wonder about the intellect and motives of those who push the global warming political agenda or, as Vulgoriila previously pointed out, "climate change" fanatics, who are changing their name to cover all bases. We need them to stick with the correct term of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), which is where they started and where the politics enters.

In addition to justifying errors, they also want to hide them and usually refuse to turn over their data for peer review. I remember G.M. covering the hockey stick graph http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/171922.php . Here are two related articles on that issue, which offers the following conclusions on that study:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001527.html
"Whether anthropogenic CO2 is forcing global climate toward catastrophic warming or solar cycles are the dominant control should become strongly indicative in the next decade and near conclusive over the following one. For skeptics to win this debate by superior evidence and argumentation would probably take longer than letting reality settle it. The more important role for skeptics is to provide an opposing balance against hysteria and to define what is to be learned from the whole affair. This is unlikely to come from true believers no matter what the actual outcome."

and, this:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001537.html
"What has gone on here is criminal. Public monies have been directed in ways that they shouldn't have been on the basis of this graph. The attempt to cover-up the problems is fraud."

Also, see: http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66

What the global warming folks ignore is that, first, we need proof of mankind being the prime problem, which we don't have and, second, that we can not only adapt, but that we are developing alternate sources of energy--and we would have more in the way of nuclear power if it were not for the same whiny alarmists claiming that nuclear energy is bad.

GW alarmists won't be happy until the grant money has run out or they have destroyed the economies of western powers. In the meantime, don't expect honesty or real science from them. But, do expect character assassination of those who disagree.

Posted by Woody at September 4, 2006 09:12 AM

Do you right wingers admit the earths atmosphere is warmng? If it isn't why are the ice caps, glaciers etc disappearing? I won't say melting because that would give you an opening to ridicule. (That really seems to be the Republican ethos. Don't solve it, ridicule it). Doesn't it seem that your source Volokh? cherry picked the data to fit his hypothesis? Don't Catagory 4 hurricanes do damage?
Suppose I agree that the atmosphere is warming to some extent by a natural cycle. (I do), Is there any possibility that the incremental warming which appears to sharpen the slope of the warming curve, may possibly be due to the huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide that man is dumping into that atmosphere? Do you absolutely deny that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Would it be a worthwhile thing to delay the onslought of heat?
As nutty as Californians are, I applaud their inititive. What is it about attempte to control bad things that upset you right wingers? Are you in favor of disbanding law enforcement because it is tax supported and reastricts the freedom of righties?
Does the sense of reason even enter your minds?

Posted by James Melbert at September 4, 2006 11:58 AM

James, before I agree to spend trillions of dollars and to cut the "living wages" of everyone 20% to pay for claims of a problem, I'm going to require a high level of proof that the called-for sacrifices will solve it. So far, I haven't even been convinced that global warming is the problem that Al Gore claims, that man is a primary cause of it, and that any meaningful effort can stop it.

Reason enters my mind not to waste money and ruin people's lives until I can get accurate data from people who can be trusted. Let's not be "knee-jerk" over this.

It really doesn't hurt to study this on a long-term basis before taking drastic action. New York isn't going to be flooded any time in the next century. Why the rush? Are the global warming activists afraid that time will prove them wrong before they have a chance to get their hands on the money and to control the politics--like they tried with the "New Ice Age" in the past?

Liberals should stick to creativity other than global warming, maybe like the arts, and let conservatives stick to science, business, and reason.

In a nutshell (which can describe the home of global warming) and with what we know, the "cure" won't work and is worse than the disease.

Posted by Woody at September 4, 2006 12:15 PM

"Do you right wingers admit the earths atmosphere is warmng?" Not a problem at all, the problem is the cause of the warming. If it is the increased activity of the Sun, it seems that other than exporting an awful lot of Ice to the Sun we can't do much about it. Further, if the Sun is not the cause Why are Mars, Saturn and Jupiter showing increased warming surely that is not anthropogenic unless you believe that there really are little green men on those planets

:If it isn't why are the ice caps, glaciers etc disappearing?" Gee Jimmy, why did the glaciers disappear at the end of the last Ice age. Your question is non-sensical in the extreme, we don't need to ridicule it becuse it falls on its face anyway. Too, there is no doubt that the earth is warming a bit, the question remains WHY?and to what extent and what can be realistically done about it. Those of us who are not GW fanatics would like an answer to that and we aren't getting one from you true believers.

"I won't say melting because that would give you an opening to ridicule. (That really seems to be the Republican ethos. Don't solve it, ridicule it)." Great, throw in an ad hominem or twelve. How many of the skeptical scientists are Democrats? What, you don't know? How can that be, according to your statement it should be none Lastly, your statement is ridicule anyway, so you use ridicule to accuse us of ridicule? Ridiculous!

"Doesn't it seem that your source Volokh? cherry picked the data to fit his hypothesis? Don't Catagory 4 hurricanes do damage?" It would appear that you jumped the shark on this one, and didn't read the article or the supporting links. So, for your benefit I'll re-post it here: "...there is absolutely no trend in category-5 hurricanes in the period of their study: 1970-2004. Indeed, the 1990s showed insignificantly fewer hurricanes than either the 1970s or 1980s. Thus, all of the increase in the North Atlantic category 4-5 storms reported in the 2005 Science article must be due to an increase category-4, not category-5 storms." The whole issue is the GW "prediction" of a huge increase in storms (hasn't happened, in fact, the predictions for this years storms have been downgraded once or twice I believe) and that hasn't happened at all. Even Katrina was only a cat one or two when it hit New Orleans... it was a cat 5 only at it's peak.

"Suppose I agree that the atmosphere is warming to some extent by a natural cycle. (I do), Is there any possibility that the incremental warming which appears to sharpen the slope of the warming curve, may possibly be due to the huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide that man is dumping into that atmosphere?" Huge Amounts? Is that why all you leftwingers are all up in arms? You mean, of course all the jet flights that AlGore doesn't take, the SUV's that he and Obama don't drive etc. Hypocritical perhaps? No one is arguing that there is not an increase in CO2, that is not the issue and you know it. The issue, since you repeatedly have difficulty understanding it (and here, you are not alone, you are in the company of a huge number of true believers) is what does that contribute if anything to the effect. Too, what does the increase in CO2 cause other than increases in the public funding of those who are the most alarmist about it? And, where is the proof? The discredited but oh so sainted Hockey Stick? Please, even you can't believe that.

"Do you absolutely deny that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas?" See above - but I can't believe that you are even asking the question. I suspect you are one of those true believers that would shout from the rooftops that an increase of from 1 ton to 10 tons is a "gasp" 1000% increase... quick, bar all development and please, please don't breathe anymore." I'm being sarcastic, but so is your question.

"Would it be a worthwhile thing to delay the onslought of heat?" How? Kyoto? That is laughable and you know it.

"As nutty as Californians are, I applaud their inititive. What is it about attempte to control bad things that upset you right wingers?" It was us right wingers that said banning Alar and cyclamates was dumb too. Yet, you left wingers (and Californians one would presume) jumped on that band wagon and eliminated Alar from Apples with the result that fewer apples reach market because of spoilage and the ones that do are more expensive. Cyclamate? Remember that one? Lets see, if you drink 800 cans of diet cola with cyclamate in them you may get cancer if I keep it up for 5 years of so... I propose that drinking 800 cans of anything will cause you problems. Our only problem with California jumping on this bandwagon is that it is done for political reasons, not scientific. What is it that you can't understand about that?

"Are you in favor of disbanding law enforcement because it is tax supported and reastricts the freedom of righties?" Oh please, can't you come up with a more rational, less ad hominem style argument than that?

"Does the sense of reason even enter your minds?" Yes, but I'm beginning to doubt if it enters the minds of you leftwinger true believers. Or, is it just reflexive commenting on your part?

Oh, and as to California's "political" vice "scientific" greenhouse gas laws, consider this post from a new friend of mine: Unintended consequences 101

Posted by GM at September 4, 2006 12:49 PM

Man can't even do the seeming simply task of ridding one's house or neighborhood (or the world) of the simple cockroach -- yes somehow we're able to raise the global temperature? Sorry, I'm not buying that we are capable of that at all. You're going to need piles and piles of evidence, which you're highly unlikely to be able to supply, to convince me that man even has the capability to have ANY effect on the earth overall.

One damn volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than man could ever DREAM of!

Posted by Ogre at September 4, 2006 06:29 PM

How many of the leftie commenters 'jumped' up and down at a predetermined minute last month in hope of making the earth move on it's axis? If they get any more stupid we'll have to spent 60% of the federal budget on nut houses.

Posted by Scrapiron at September 4, 2006 07:22 PM

Ogre, let alone sulpher dioxide and God knows how many dust particles ... oh, wait, that will help cool the earth... quick, start more volcanoes erupting... ;-)

Posted by GM at September 4, 2006 08:24 PM

Hey, George and Woody:
My Dad had a old saying, "the hit dog howls".
Wow! you folk need a tranquilizer.
I don't mind sitting around to see what happens, because another eight to ten years, and I'm outta' here. I do have some feeling for my grand children and great grandchildren who will be the beneficiaries of the money driven ethos that seem to be so pervasive today.
Why spend billions of some foolishness? Wow, what are we doing today. spending dollars that you won't have to pay. but someone will in the future. "Apres moi le deluge" You folk would fit in with Louie the XIV

Pleasen no more Ad Hominen, I concede that you are both educated. But my remarks were not directed at your actions, more like your lack of action Now that is your opening. to make ad hominen remarks. Liberal activist!

Posted by James Melbert at September 5, 2006 09:57 AM

Ad Hominem. I didn't hit the em key. My typing is not equal to the task.

Posted by James Melbert at September 5, 2006 10:00 AM

My Dad had a old saying, "the hit dog howls".

Yep, I remember something like that from Daddy-Bah. But, the true-believers response when asked to substantiate their "hockey stick" and to prove that the changes asked would provide the results predicted are the one's howling "Right Wingers" etc.
Correct rememberence, misapplied! :-)

I also note that you have brought out that tired old shibolith of the left "but, it's for the children." (You know, the children that the left uses when they are losing the arguments?) Great, if it's truly for the children and not for a political point, prove the science and the results predicted that's all we are asking for. On the other hand, when the left brings out "it's for the children" I get sick at my stomach; it's as though the left doesn't believe that the right gives a damn about the future, we do James, just not always on your terms. Guess who needs the tranq?

Posted by GM at September 5, 2006 04:16 PM

GM, Woody, save this exchange as an example of what happens when an initial antagonist is confronted by facts.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at September 6, 2006 05:10 PM