Posts filed under 'Environment'
Never thought I’d see this:
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that “true believers” like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.
“It’s like buying fire insurance,” Moore said. “We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident.”
The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.
I still hold that global warming is probably not happening to the extent the alarmists claim, but I’ve been long in favor of a crash nuclear program to end reliance on imported oil and coal-fired power plants…and, heck, if the enviro-whackos really want to un-dam some of those rivers, then the electrical power can be replaced by nuclear power plants. We’ve even got the place to put them where NIMBY’s are unlikely to complain - the Nevada Test Site; its already radioactive, after all, and most monitoring of the plant can be done remotely (naturally, we Nevadan’s will demand a quid pro quo here…some sort of surcharge on the rest of the nation which would, oh, cover about double our State budget - about $2.5 billion per year - so that we can have a gold-plated health and education system, and no taxes…).
Environmental problems must be tackled with common sense and hard science - which means that 99% of environmentalists will have to be excluded from any part in the debate. Nuclear power is cheap, safe and renewable, and we’ve been the world’s biggest dunderheads for following the “no nukes” demands of the late 70’s all the way into the early 21st century. Time to put aside such childish things, and start acting like adults in matters environmental and energy.
Tags: energy policy, global warming, nuclear power, oil price
April 25th, 2008
Happy Earth Day!
So much for global warming. Earth Day festivities went ahead despite the blast of frigid weather yesterday.
Vendors and presenters from various eco-friendly groups, including Bullfrog Power, CO2 Reduction Edmonton and the local solar energy society, crammed into a lone tent in Hawrelak Park after a blizzard forced them to abandon their original locations.
Organizers crammed over 40 groups in a space that would normally be occupied by half that number. Presenters’ booths were initially planned to have been spread out between at least five tents, with far larger displays.
“We’re normally here with a lineup of cyclists for our free bike repair service. No bikers came today. Big surprise,” said Chris Field of Mountain Equipment Co-Op.
A handful of visitors still took the time to inquire about several solar-powered products on display at the M.E.C. booth and browsed several others before running off toward the lone heater in the tent to warm up.
Weather, its just a son of a gun, ain’t it? Never seems to cooperate - you want to picnic, and it rains. You want to go sailing, and its a dead calm. You want to have a gloom-and-doom, we’re-all-gonna-die global warming scare, and you get a blizzard…
Tags: global warming
April 22nd, 2008
So, some are now saying that higher CO2 levels don’t cause warming:
When Global Warmingest-in-Chief Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, the media’s prideful gushing was so obvious it was almost sick-making.
Now, six months later, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”
Newsbusters has the entire letter sent to the IPCC, and I recommend going over to the site to read the whole thing. The most stunning thing in the letter, in my view, is this part:
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise. (emphasis added)
I’d like to say that it is surprising that contrarian data wasn’t included - but the whole global warming issue has been shot through with people refusing to include data which indicates that, just perhaps, CO2 isn’t the culprit or, if it is, that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t account for the temperature increase. It is dead certain that this letter won’t make it far in the MSM - but it does indicate that we shall soon see the end of the global warming issue - as time goes on and the world doesn’t die due to American SUV’s (Chinese SUV’s are harmless, according to Kyoto, as are Indian), it will become ever harder even for Al Gore to sustain the “just so” story which is global warming.
The problem with environmentalism, as a whole, is not that it wants to clean up the environment - everyone wants that. The problem is that the movement has been largely absorbed by the political left, and that means it was forced to take on a leftwing politico-economic mindset. The result is that helping the environment has taken a back seat towards harming free market capitalism in general, and the United States in particular. Socialists just can’t seem to help themselves - pollution isn’t the enemy, America and free markets are…so, screw a bunch of actually cleaning up, say, a dirty river…there’s more leftwing interest in blaming the United States for killing the whole planet, with the resultant need to curb the United States and its pesky democratic institutions and annoying free market.
HAT TIP: Sister Toldjah
Tags: global warming
April 15th, 2008
Curious how normally recurring weather patterns are resulting in a cooler earth this year - wonder if anyone in the global warming community will look into this?
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
Five years being a long enough time frame for all but conservatives to forget that 2008 represented a 10 year non-warming-trend, and 2013 will likely be the 15th year of said trend…but, in 2013, most people having forgotten this years global warming news, will key into predictions that, really this time, we’re in for a record hot year in the next five.
The best thing about global warming: no proof required, and nothing which happens can discredit it, in the eyes of its zealots.
Tags: global warming
April 4th, 2008
Global warming zealotry as a threat to liberty - Vaclav Klaus in The Australian:
A WEEK ago, I gave a speech at an official gathering at Prague Castle commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1948 communist putsch in the former Czechoslovakia. One of the arguments of my speech, quoted in all the leading newspapers in the country the next morning, went as follows: Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will nevertheless be identical: the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its present strongest version, climate alarmism.
As an economist, I have to start by stressing the obvious. Carbon dioxide emissions do not fall from heaven. Their volume (ECO2) is a function of gross domestic product per capita (which means of the size of economic activity, SEA), of the number of people (POP) and of the emissions intensity (EI), which is the amount of CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP. This is usually expressed in a simple relationship: ECO2 = EI x SEA x POP. What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.
I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science. Human wants are unlimited and should stay so. Asceticism is a respectable individual attitude but should not be forcefully imposed upon the rest of us.
I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniacal ambitions, want to regulate and constrain demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery road to serfdom. The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights.
There are people among the global-warming alarmists who would protest against being included in any of these categories, but who do call for a radical decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. It can be achieved only by means of a radical decline in the emissions intensity.
Did you exhale while reading that? Then you contributed to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I recommend reading the whole article - it hits at the crux of the problem with global warming alarmism: the threat to liberty posed by those who say that the crisis in gigantic and they are the people who know how to fix it.
There seems to be latent within humanity a desire to control things - a desire, that is, to set everything to right and by a web of rules to make everything fair and square. Such plans are always doomed to failure because of human nature - we are a fallen people, and thus there is in us a desire to deliberately choose the wrong thing even though we know full well that it is wrong, and that we’d be better off chosing the right thing. As long as human beings are human beings, there will be nothing but approximations of equity and justice in human affairs. Enter the utopian idealist (100 years ago, a socialist; today, an environmentalist) who ignores all of human history, asserts that our problems are the results of the rules we use and if we could just alter the rules, everything will come together just fine. Of course, to obtain the control necessary to change the rules, the utopian idealist will puff up the problem to gigantic proportions (100 years ago, the horrors of the robber barons; today, the claim that the very earth will be wrecked), and will insist upon a totalitarian system under the utopians’ exclusive control.
Even the most benign of the global warming zealots contains within himself the seed of what I call “junior-league Leninism”; “junior league” because these people don’t contemplate murdering millions of people, as Lenin did from an early age; but “Leninist”, none the less, because like Lenin they aspire to a baby-out-with-the-bathwater overturning of society in the name of alleged human progress. The plain fact of the matter is that even if the global warming zealots are correct that the world is rapidly warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions there is no way short of the most radical, totalitarian program to reduce CO2 emissions to a point where global warming ceases and then starts to reverse itself. And I’m doubtful that even totalitarian efforts would do the trick - I think that as long as there are to be 9 to 12 billion of us a century or so hence, there is simply no way to reduce CO2 emissions to a point where more CO2 comes out of the atmosphere than goes in.
And so, only a collapse of the global economy resulting in a massive die-off of humanity will do the trick…and mark my words, good people, as the global warming zealts gain power and come to realise just what it would take to reverse what they view as the central problem of our times, there will be more and more of them willing to go that route. In my view, we should make efforts to pollute less and clean up our messes from the good stewardship mindset - and we should leave off any alarmism, just as we leave off any program to create heaven on earth.
Tags: global warming, Vaclav Klaus
March 13th, 2008
Interesting idea:
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals “runaway warming” impossible
Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center.
After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. “I fell in love,” he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.
“Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.
Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution — originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today — ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference … but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Naturally, we can expect the anthropogenic global warming zealots to disparage this - but I’ve done a bit of checking ’round the net on Miklós Zágoni and he really was an ardent advocate for global warming. Given this, he really can’t be just dismissed - his arguments have to be met, head on, by those who disagree; in other words, someone will have to demonstrate that his calculations are incorrect…and if no one can do that, then we’ll have to work from the assumption that, at the least, he’s on to something which requires a lot of research and which keeps open the whole global warming debate.
Tags: global warming, Miklós Zágoni
March 8th, 2008
The dratted snow is entirely messing up this global warm….errr, I mean…climate change thingy:
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
Looking out from my neighborhood, I’ve noticed that Mt. Charleston has a much thicker snow cover than usual (yes, we’re in sight of snow here in the Las Vegas valley) - started snowing up there earlier, and has snowed up there far more often than I’ve seen over my 13 years in Las Vegas. Heck, even the hills behind my house have received several dustings of snow this winter.
I wonder what it all means? Oh, I know - it doesn’t matter; more snow = climate change. Less snow = climate change. Higher temperatures = climate change. Lower tempuratures = climate change. The perfect theory of everything - climate change.
Tags: global warming
February 26th, 2008
Was the Goracle recently giving a global warm…errr…climate change speech in Minnesota?
MINNEAPOLIS - It lived up to its name: The temperature in International Falls fell to 40 below zero Monday, just a few days after the northern Minnesota town won a federal trademark making it officially the “Icebox of the Nation.”
It was so cold that resident Nick McDougall couldn’t get his car trunk to close after he got out his charger to kick-start his dead battery. By late morning, the temperature had risen all the way to 18 — below zero.
“This is about as cold as it gets, this is bad. There’s no wind — it’s just cold,” said McDougall, 48, a worker at The Fisherman, a convenience store and gas station in the town on the Canadian border. “People just don’t go out, unless you have to go to work.”
Residents of the area use electric engine block heaters to keep their cars from freezing.
The wonderful world of climate change - anything that happens is the fault of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the fault of the United States, which is the fault of Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler, working for Big Oil. Nifty to be a leftist - never have to think about things.
Tags: global warming
February 12th, 2008
I mean, seriously, who advocates (publicly) for the slowing down of the economy?
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”
At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?
It’s pretty sad that a strong economy takes the backseat to fighting so-called global warming. Clinton’s explanation for his comments was pretty weak as well. I believe, however, that this attitude is not shared by a majority of our representatives in Congress. There’s a reason why the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the Kyoto Protocol — because it was obvious that the treaty would have devastated our economy. But, then again… that was before Bush was elected, before Al Gore made global warming the Democrats’ number one issue… Perhaps Democrats are much more likely to appease radical environmental special interests…
Tags: Al Gore, Bill Clinton, global warming
January 31st, 2008
As usual when the global warming zealots show up:
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation’s toughest greenhouse gas control law.
As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.
“We are going to pass this bill this year,” said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George’s County and chairman of the senate’s environmental matters subcommittee. “We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop….We are going to keep going until we pass this bill.”
This happens so often that one begins to think that a Power is trying to get something through rather thick, leftwing skulls…be that as it may, there is also this news from Greenland:
Residents insist Greenland’s freezing temperatures don’t mean global warming has been called off
While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.
‘The ice is up to 50cm thick,’ said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. ‘We’ve had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.’
Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.
Gee, almost like its some sort of…well…what would the best word be?…..hmmm…oh, I know: its almost like a cycle; you know, a recurring pattern in weather where sometimes its warming, and sometimes its colder…
Tags: global warming
January 18th, 2008
According to this Senate report, over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims this year.
From the introduction:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Meanwhile, Democrats have been using the politics of fear to increase regulations of all kinds in the name of the environment, like banning incandescent light bulbs.
Tags: Al Gore, global warming, IPCC
December 20th, 2007
From Canada Free Press:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
Carpe Diem has a link to the actual report, but I was unable to access it - it’ll be interesting to see just how our global warming zealots deal with this report.
It has long been my opinion that if the earth is, indeed, in a long term warming trend, then there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it. If it wasn’t caused by us, then that is just a natural position to hold - but even if it were caused by us, then it took more than a century to put into effect, and it would likely take longer than that to stop and then reverse the effects…meaning, of course, that there’s no point in trying to reverse it (though it still is wise to reduce pollution on general principle), and we might as well adapt to it. In addition to this, I hold that the doomsday predictions of the global warming zealots are just absurd - they have no idea what would really happen if the world warmed up by a few degrees over the next 100 years. Scare stories based on guesses just don’t impress me much.
Tags: global warming
December 18th, 2007
Interesting - from American Thinker:
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
China increased its output by 55% - and China, of course, was excluded from the provisions of Kyoto. The whole Kyoto exercise was worthless from the start, and these stats just confirm it.
Tags: global warming, Kyoto treaty
December 17th, 2007
Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, a medical “expert” in Australia “wants families to pay a $5000-plus ‘baby levy’ at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.” Could such a proposal have legs here in America? I could see the lunatic left in this country getting behind such a ridiculous plan.
Tags: Kook Left, taxes
December 10th, 2007
While the Truth shall, indeed, set you free, our leftwing leaders have decided that a fat paycheck is worth a lot of lies and arrogance:
Al Gore has come under fire for making personal gain from his mission to save the planet – after charging £3,300 a minute to deliver a poorly received speech.
The former American Vice-President was also accused of being “precious” at the London event, demanding his own VIP room and ejecting journalists, despite hopes the star-studded gathering would generate publicity for the fight against global warming.
Many of the audience at last month’s Fortune Forum summit were restless as Mr Gore, who has won both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his campaigning work this year, delivered the half-hour speech that netted him £100,000.
The glittering fundraiser was held in The Royal Courts of Justice and attracted world leaders, entrepreneurs and celebrity activists including Bob Geldof, Darryl Hannah and Jerry Hall, who was there as “a Special Ambassador of The Alliance for a New Humanity”. Guests had paid between £1,000 and £50,000 to attend.
But a source told The Mail on Sunday: “Many guests looked tired and began to talk among themselves during his speech. Heads began to twitch with tiredness.
“Al uses his position for great personal gain. He goes from event to event delivering a similar speech, earning a large fee, and a lot of the time he doesn’t actually inform the audience.
I wonder how long it will take before the rank and file lefties realise that each of their icons has been a con artist living a high life off of them? As I’ve noted before, if I were a man willing to be quite dishonest I could gain wealth and fame if I were to merely change my blogging name and, by using fictitious reports and studies, were to start writing anti-Bush/anti-American/anti-Christian polemics. It wouldn’t matter what I said provided I blamed Bush/America/Christianity - no lefty would actually examine anything I asserted as fact and when conservative bloggers and writers would start to demonstrate conclusively that I’m lying, the lefties who bought my initial BS would rise to my defense rather than admit they were fooled.
One of the greatest ironies of modern times is that our lefties stoutly assert that they are part of the “reality based community” - this a sly dig at both religious believers and the supposed lack of intellectual curiosity on the right in general. It is easy to make a list of BS the left believed - Mumia, Farenheit 911, Tawana Brawley, Joe Wilson, October Surprise, Florida 2000, torture at Gitmo…as each and every leftwing story is proven not just false, but laughably false, the left just ignores the facts - the reality - and MovesOn as if nothing had changed. A constant refrain of mine here on the blog is my asking of lefty critics to think about things. Just think - consider everything in context and ask the question: Is there anyone advocating this who is gaining personally from it?
As to why Gore got into environmentalism, I don’t know - and for all I know, he got into it with the purest of motives. Whatever the initial motivation - and whatever Gore tells himself when he looks at himself in the mirror these days - the plain fact of the matter is that he’s milking the issue of global warming for personal gain. And, beyond that, he’s either been convinced or convinced himself that he’s a superior being on the strength of his advocacy of the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. While he still might have interesting things to say on the subject, anyone with any sense at all knows that anything he says must be taken with a grain of salt - his whole public persona and a very large amount of his yearly paycheck is dependent upon his being right about what he advocates. This means he’s unlikely to even listen to anyone who has a contrarian point of view - Gore, unless he’s a man of extraordinarily strong character, is unlikely to ever admit he’s wrong on global warming; he owns “doom and gloom” on it, and a reversal would be humiliating and only a man who has freed himself entirely from the sin of pride could bear to admit he’s wrong - and demanding a special VIP room is not the act of a humble man.
You know, I know - the guy down the street knows. Our lefty friends, however, don’t know - and they don’t want to know. Since Gore says what they want to hear about the isse of global warming and just so long as he keep singing out of the lefty hymnal on the subject, the leftwing rank and file will defend him against all comers. Not only conned, but quite happily conned; that is our modern left. Its easier than thinking, I guess.
Tags: Al Gore, Environmentalism, global warming, Lefting Ideology
December 10th, 2007
Interesting:
PORTLAND - The first major winter storm to sweep across Maine this season was farther out to sea than expected, reducing snowfall totals, but there was still plenty of the white stuff to clean up on Tuesday, officials said.
Portland tied the record for the date set in 1890 with 8.5 inches of snow on Monday, according to Bob Marine of the National Weather Service.
Elsewhere, Marshfield in Washington County had 18 inches of snow, Lakeville in Penobscot County 17 inches, Island Falls in Aroostook County 16, Brassau Lake near Moosehead 15.7, Farmington 14.7 inches and Andover 13, the weather service said.
Also interesting:
The National Weather Service says the Grand Forks airport had 8.1 inches of snow yesterday, setting a record for the date. And Fargo set a record with 5.9 inches.
The previous mark in both cities was set back in 1926.
I know, it isn’t “global warming” anymore, its now “climate change”…and it is responsible for both record heat, and record cold; record drought, record snowfalls…its responsible for everything, including Al Gore’s weight gain.
Tags: global warming
December 6th, 2007
As the myth of anthroprogenic global warming continues to be debunked, the stakeholders of the perpetuation of the global warming fairy tale, knowing full well which side their bread is buttered, are turning up the rhetoric, predicting increasingly dire consequences in frenzied, histrionic efforts to keep the hysteria going.
Look for the rhetoric to continue to escalate, as desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures.
And for the global warming alarmists, these times are undeniably desperate.
