I hate President Bush so much. It's colder than crap in Indiana- highs in the 40s. This weekend we had half inch thick hunks of ice raining down. Almost the end of April, and there's snow piling up on the car. Stupid Bush.
Granted, it gave me a good excuse to whip out the Parade album and get up on "Sometimes It Snows in April." That's always gratifying.
Still, we could be having Carribean weather, growing pineapple trees in Indiana. I'd love to have my own little orange grove here on the farm. Better yet, I'd turn this joint into a coconut grove, like the Lovin' Spoonful classic.
See, we were doing good with the Democrats. Al Gore was going to get us some of that fancy global warming. [Used copies of Earth in the Balance are available at Amazon for 15 cents- a great bargain!] We could have turned the farm into a rainforest, and imported some of them endangered species from the Brazilian rainforests that we're clearing off. We'd have us some exotic critters here what would make them alpacas look like crap.
But NOOOOO, a bunch of fascist religious yahoos had to elect George Bush president instead. Sure, the air and water are getting cleaner year by year, but how's that going to turn Indiana woods into a tropical paradise?
Stupid Bush voters. It's too damned cold. I want my global warming.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Those are a couple of excellent links there, Al. I imagine I'll get much use out of the PRI in the future.
Dave
2 - RJ
Well...
Those who fully believe in "Global Climate Change" will counter that such unexpected cold-snaps merely PROVE their point about Global Warming.
See, it goes something like this:
Q - How's the weather?
A - Fine. Normal.
Q - Well, it won't be for long!
---
Q - How's the weather?
A - Hotter than usual.
Q - See! PROOF that Global Warming is happening!
---
Q - How's the weather?
A - Colder than usual.
Q - See! PROOF that we are currently experiencing GLOBAL CLIKMATE CHANGE!
---
It's no mystery why this crowd has changed its tune so many times. First it was, ANOTHER ICE AGE! Then it was, THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT! Then it was, GLOBAL WARMING! Now it's the ambiguous GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!
Now, no matter what your local weather is , these fun folks can use this is PROOF that their theory is correct! Any abnormality in weather patterns is EVIDENCE of a massive shift in global weather patterns. And if the weather where you live is pretty normal? They will simply suggest that IT WON't BE MUCH LONGER!
So, regardless of whether the weather is unusually cool, warm or neither, these people will stick to their guns. It's almost a religion for them. Blief is vastly more important than potentially contradictory evidence...
3 - Pete Blackwell
Yes, and the Earth is flat and only liberals think cigarettes cause lung cancer. As a general rule, I only trust scientists who work for the tobacco companies and the coal industry. I mean, why trust the "vast majority" of scientists? If the vast majority of scientists jumped off a cliff, would you? Hell no! Everyone knows that scientists are just a bunch of godless commies, anyway, except the ones who work for Exxon, of course. They believe in a capitalist god who drives the biggest SUV in the universe.
4 - Dave Nalle
>>Any abnormality in weather patterns is EVIDENCE of a massive shift in global weather patterns. <<
When has weather ever been normal, consistent or predictable?
>>I mean, why trust the "vast majority" of scientists?<<
While the majority of scientists agree that the climate changes over time - and those who find it advantageous use this to claim that the 'vast majority of scientists' support global warming theory. The fact is that most scientists are not willing to commit to the idea that human actions are in any way responsible for what may be going on in the climate right now.
Dave
5 - RJ
Well, I'm open-minded enough to agree that we cannot simply pump millions of tons of previously locked-away carbon-based fuels into the air without there being some sort of consequence...but the anti-growth environmentalist lobby has been promoting various contradictory doomsday scenarios for so long that I no longer really believe what they say.
So, here's the deal:
Pollution? Bad.
Destroying Western civilization's industry? Bad.
Smog? Bad.
Letting elderly people in the South expire, because air conditioners use up a lot of energy, and we simply cannot have that? Bad.
Sooo...how about we all agree that we need a serious energy policy in this country. One that doesn't attempt to strangle demand, while at the same time offering a more eco-friendly supply.
Deal? Deal...
6 - simon hb
Right, it's snowing in April. That's a much stronger and compelling argument against global warming than the melting of the polar ice caps, the disappearance of almost all the snow from kilamanjaro; the glaciers in the alps shrinking; whales and dolphins moving northwards into the coastal waters off the British Isles - you can make a snowball in early April.
7 - Maurice
...proof of his far-sightedness
is that none of his predictions have come true yet...
8 - Pete Blackwell
While the majority of scientists agree that the climate changes over time - and those who find it advantageous use this to claim that the 'vast majority of scientists' support global warming theory. The fact is that most scientists are not willing to commit to the idea that human actions are in any way responsible for what may be going on in the climate right now.
Nice try, Dave. You use the same tactics that the oil & coal industry "scientists" use: deny, confuse, obfuscate.
"Most scientists believe recent global warming has been generated by human influence on a naturally-occurring phenomenon called the greenhouse effect." Link
9 - Jon Sobel
It's amazing to me that right-wingers can use loaded terms like "the anti-growth environmentalist lobby" with a straight face given the Orwellian anti-fact world the Bushies live in. Politicizing science is like breathing to them. There's plenty of opinion on this right
here, but if you don't trust the Dems' website, just read this quote from Nixon's director of the National Bureau of Standards, Lewis Branscomb: "I'm not aware that [Nixon] ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory committees, or dismissed from advisory committees very well-qualified people if he didn't like their views.... What's going on now is in many ways more insidious. It happens behind the curtain. I don't think we've had this kind of cynicism with respect to objective scientific advice since I've been watching government, which is quite a long time."
If you believe that the truth is sacred, you must believe that what this Bush crowd does is evil, plain and simple.
10 - MDE
Re: “If you believe that the truth is sacred, you must believe that what this Bush crowd does is evil, plain and simple.”
Jon " Theories (and their related truths) that we deal with in everyday life (and science) are profane and always open to refutation and obfuscation. Witness the effectiveness of advertising and propaganda. Words like ‘evil’ and ‘sacred’ might not be appropriate to a political discussion.
But wait! Bush is the Anti-Christ! (At least that’s what I heard.)
A interesting comparison can be made between the treatment of Science under the Bush crew and the way it was treated in Stalin’s Soviet Union where scientific truth was politically controlled by deputy for science Lysenko. The Lysenko period proved to be an embarrassment for that country and that’s where we’re going with Bush.
Mark
11 - Dave Nalle
Pete B:"Nice try, Dave. You use the same tactics that the oil & coal industry "scientists" use: deny, confuse, obfuscate."
Actually, I prefer to deal in facts and truth.
Pete quoting the BBC: "Most scientists believe recent global warming has been generated by human influence on a naturally-occurring phenomenon called the greenhouse effect."
And you do what most leftists do, make claims without any documentary support. Which also appears to be a problem for BBC journalists. Just saying 'most scientists' in an article doesn't make it true. Let's see a source for that conclusion.
For your reference there's a great article by Richard Lindzen on how the global warming hype got promulgated by environmentalists and basically sold to the public and then picked up by scientists from there on the Cato Institute website.
And there's a very useful article on this subject from the National Center for Policy Analysis which references actuall polling data of scientists which shows that only 17% of meteorologists believe in the role of humanity in global warming - this was a Gallup poll, not some made up partisan poll of selected subjects. It also cites a survey by Greenpeace - of all people - which shows that only 13% of scientists believe global warming will lead to radical climate change.
So, the truth is that scientists DO NOT overwhelmingly believe that humans are causing global warming. It's just not true. It's a politically driven bit of propaganda pushed by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and by radicals who want to use environmentalism to force social and economic change on the US and other capitalist countries.
Dave
12 - Pete Blackwell
And you do what most leftists do, make claims without any documentary support.
Dave, read my comment. There's a quote and then there's a link to the source of the quote. Since you "prefer to deal in facts and truth," you must admit that this is the DEFINITION of documentary support. If you want to ask the BBC for their source, go ahead. I certainly trust them more than I do either you or the CATO Institute.
But, you do what "most [right]-wingers do." You simply dismiss any possible source the other side might offer a priori. So what's the point of argument?
13 - Richard
Only idiot fools who have no understanding of science scoff and play happy word games at the implications of global warming. Here is the latest news:
The Bush administration's program to study climate change lacks a major component required by law, according to GAO investigators. The program fails to include periodic assessments of how rising temperatures may affect people and the environment.
Happy Happy, Make a joke!
14 - Jon Sobel
Dave: the Greenpeace survey you referred to is from 1992. Let's get with the 21st century! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 2001 after their meta-analysis that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Oh, but wait - that's from the UN. Anything they do is stoopid.
Mark, re: "Theories (and their related truths) that we deal with in everyday life (and science) are profane and always open to refutation and obfuscation... Words like ‘evil’ and ‘sacred’ might not be appropriate to a political discussion."
Agreed. That's why it gets so frustrating trying to engage in dialogue with right-wingers (many, not all - there are exceptions). The right uses apocalyptic terminology (evil empires, axes of evil etc.) and goad us into doing the same. Then, when we're called on it, we have to admit that we were goaded, and end up frustrated.
15 - Roger
Good God. You sound just like that guy on BC who wrote a couple of weeks ago about an April snowstorm in Denver as being further evidence that there is no global warming.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/12/072730.php
You guys probably also really believe that Fox News is "fair & balanced"?
If you really want to know what the deal is on our future here on Earth, see this article in the latest issue of The New Yorker @
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050425fa_fact3
Try and stay cool!
16 - Sydney
Jon,
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Roger,
Anyone who argues we don't contribute to enviromental deterioration has personal issues keeping them from seeing the reality. We'd need to examine thier personal issues before discussing enviromental issues.
17 - Dave Nalle
Pete: "Dave, read my comment. There's a quote and then there's a link to the source of the quote. Since you "prefer to deal in facts and truth," you must admit that this is the DEFINITION of documentary support. If you want to ask the BBC for their source, go ahead. I certainly trust them more than I do either you or the CATO Institute."
As I pointed out in my response the BBC article doesn't even have a basic attribution for their claim, and the claim is not, in fact, true. The truth is that the BBCs has no source - it's just a statement of presumed general knowledge whicn in this case happens to be incorrect. You passing on their error doesn't make you correct either.
Jon:"the Greenpeace survey you referred to is from 1992. Let's get with the 21st century! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 2001 after their meta-analysis that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Oh, but wait - that's from the UN. Anything they do is stoopid."
You said it, not me, but I'm not arguing. However, there is no evidence to support this claim at all. See my earlier article on this subject. The actual pattern of warming has been consistent for several hundred years and has not, in fact, accelerated in the last century or even the last 50 years. There's no reason to suspect human a human role. And might I also point out that although the Greenpeace survey is from 1992, the Gallup poll of scientists cited in the NCPA article which has only 17% of scientists supporting a human agency theory for global warming, is from 2002 - which is pretty current as these things go.
Dave
18 - MDE
re: "Right, it's snowing in April. That's a much stronger and compelling argument against global warming " etc
Seems to me that even when they are all wandering around with water up to their ankles, lobbyists in DC and think tankers in San Francisco will still be arguing over whether or not the phenomenon is for real, and, if so, who's to blame.
Thanks, Roger, for the link to the Kolbert article.
re: "The right uses apocalyptic terminology (evil empires, axes of evil etc.) and goad us into doing the same. Then, when we're called on it, we have to admit that we were goaded, and end up frustrated."
'Death tax', 'pro life'...frustrating indeed. Take pleasure in small absurdities as when some dim bulb in the department of stupid names comes up with the Freudian slip 'Enduring Freedom' without considering the various uses of 'enduring'...and the bigwigs go with it! Sadly, comedians at the time were far too patriotic to jump on it.
Mark
19 - Jon Sobel
It turns out most of the groups arguing against global warming (or its human causation) are funded by ExxonMobil. Surprise! The insurance industry, on the other hand, isn't being fooled, because global warming threatens the viability of their whole industry.
A picture's worth a thousand words. Well, this picture has words on it, too. It shows a multiplicy of effects of global warming. But I'm beginning to think that we're arguing this whole issue backwards. Instead of wasting time "debating" the causes of the present warming, maybe we should move beyond that and determine what we should be doing about it. Oh, wait - most of the world, outside the influence of the Bush fantasy bubble, already is.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>It turns out most of the groups arguing against global warming (or its human causation) are funded by ExxonMobil. <<
Are you REALLY this gullible? Your link is to Mother Jones. Come on. You think they don't have an agenda? Please note that my earlier information on scientists not supporting the human causation theory came not from an Exxon/Mobil front, but from a gallup poll of climate scientists - not ones working for Exxon, but in fact the entire membership of the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Society. As usual, the lies just don't hold up.
>>Surprise! The insurance industry, on the other hand, isn't being fooled, because global warming threatens the viability of their whole industry.
<<
Another nice whopper there. The insurance industry sees this as an opportunity to raise rates. That's it. Follow the money. When you turn to the rapacious weasels of the insurance industry for support you know your argument is bankrupt.
>>Instead of wasting time "debating" the causes of the present warming, maybe we should move beyond that and determine what we should be doing about it. Oh, wait - most of the world, outside the influence of the Bush fantasy bubble, already is.<<
And the ship of logic sails by you again. If humans didn't cause global warming, how exactly are we supposed to stop it? And how do we know something radical enough to change a huge natural force wouldn't do incalculable environmental damge? And don't dare say a word about Kyoto, it totally ignores the countries which are going to be the major polluters of the coming centuries and instead focuses on social engineering and gratuitous wealth redistribution. It's not an environmental program it's a socialist manifesto.
Dave
21 - MDE
see also exxon secrets:
a statement of the company's relationship with the Pacific Research Institute. ExxonMobil didn't invest millions here, but ...
Mark
22 - Tom French
It seems so illogical to even have this argument if you have any science background. Can someone set up a "Bush declares earth flat" article to bait some of these arguments away
23 - Dave Nalle
Tom, 83% of the members of the American Meteorlological Association don't believe in human causation in global warming. Are you saying that meteorologists don't have a science background?
No one is debating global warming here - but the scientific evidence supports it being a natural process, not something caused by man. End of story.
Dave
24 - MDE
re:"If humans didn't cause global warming, how exactly are we supposed to stop it?"
Stop it? Who said anything about stopping it? Man made or not, what makes anybody think it can be stopped? The melt is going on right now. What are we going to do about it? That's the question. Is it time to start thinking of shorefront properties as short rather than long-term investments? How about cities on stilts?
Mark
25 - Bennett Dawson
Nah, a couple hundred feet of elevation, 40 acres, southern exposure, a deep well, a big garden, several guns, cows, chickens, a wood furnace.
You'll be fine