From Don Surber:
After 35 years of telling us carbon dioxide is melting ice in Antarctica, New Scientist is now saying carbon dioxide has caused the ice to grow for 35 years.
What they said before:
From June 23, 2007: “Rising sea levels could divide and conquer Antarctic ice.”
From March 25, 2008: “Antarctic ice shelf ‘hanging by a thread’.”
From January 21, 2009: “Even Antarctica is now feeling the heat of climate change.”
From July 31, 2011: “Antarctica rising as ice caps melt.”
Got that?
Year-in and year-out, the editors at the New Scientist have warned us that the ice in Antarctica is melting fast…
So, what is New Scientist saying now? That the Antarctic ice cap is larger than ever, and that global warming is the cause.
Face it, we can’t actually win this debate – if glaciers start to cover half of North America, the global warming alarmists will be out there saying it is because of global warming. It doesn’t matter what the facts are because global warming is replacing religion in the lives of people on the left…they have to believe in something, and they’ve decided to believe that (a) humanity (mostly Republicans, it goes without saying) are destroying the planet and (b) only they – the liberals – can save it. You can’t beat someone’s religious beliefs; you can’t argue them out of it. All we can do is hope to win elsewhere enough political power to prevent these numbskulls from wrecking things in the name of saving the planet.
Blogs For Victory 
All we can do is hope to win elsewhere enough political power to prevent these numbskulls from wrecking things in the name of saving the planet.
Cheer up, Mark. This is simply not an important issue to most people. In the end, it’s not even about the climate. One of the marchers in New York said it best — we must destroy capitalism to save the planet. I’m sorry, but that’s just not going to go over well with your average Joe Six-Pack. What do you think is going to happen when everyone’s electric bill doubles, when gas is $10/gallon? Do you think everyone is just going to bend over say “sock it to me?”
I’m cheered up by the fact that Reuters is reporting Obama with 35% approval rating, and that is with leaners included…maybe people are really waking up.
We have the same problem with the climate change/global warming meme that we have with most liberal lies, and that’s that the media supports it to a great extent. Even sites that I normally trust like FactCheck.org claim that ClimateGate and ClimateGate II, the hacking of emails between many leading climate scientists didn’t reveal what they revealed. The emails were published in a number of venues. All you have to do is go back and read them to know that they were devastating to the alarmist side.
I will say this for the alarmists; they are extremely well funded, and they’re pros at damage control. The massive amount of money that’s at stake has so corrupted the science (and scientists) that I agree — we will probably never win the debate. As I said before, though, it really doesn’t matter. They might was well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese. The percentage of people who care is infinitesimally small. No, let me re-phrase that — the number of people who care enough to actually materially alter their lifestyle or put up with the destruction of the economy that alarmist policies would necessitate, is infinitesimally small.
Good example of the progressive habit of not “thinking things all the way through”. On every issue, foreign or domestic, you can cite short sightedness as the main reason it is all FUBAR.
Here’s more coverage of the march in New York. As the guy’s sign says, this is about changing the system, not the climate. I guarantee you, if he tries to burn MY house down, it’ll be the last thing he ever does.
One of my favorite warmist arguments is essentially their fall-back position when all their other arguments fail. But, but, but — the survival of the planet is such an important issue, we can’t afford to take the chance that the models are wrong. To which I always reply; OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the models ARE right, even though they’re not, and let’s further assume that current technology has the ability to reverse the slight temperature rise seen over the last 130 years, even though no one is claiming that it does. Is anyone claiming that they know precisely what the temperature should be? What happens if we reverse it too far, resulting in lower crop yields and more deaths due to cold? I have yet to have a Lefty come back with an answer to that one.
The other day, John F’n Kerry, told us that we didn’t have to believe the scientists if we didn’t want to. All we had to do was look out our door and hear Mother Nature screaming at us. Correct me if I am wrong, but tornado and hurricane activity is at historic lows and many areas of the western hemisphere have had two consecutive summers that have been quite cool. In fact, I think we set many records this year for low “high” summer temps. On top of that, the Arctic Ice shelf has expanded exponentially from it’s low point of couple of years ago.
The climate is changing alright. It’s just not changing in the manner liberals frame it, and that fact has them growing more and more unhinged. Why won’t we all believe the consensus??? Dammit!!!
Why won’t we all believe the consensus??? Dammit!!!
In a nutshell, no money in a consensus that contradicts the Leftist position.
I have an idea. Let’s ask the elite liberals to “walk the walk” and lead by example in terms of global warming. Surely many of them will forgo much of their million dollar contracts and instead donate those funds to third world countries who are most “negatively impacted”. I am sure most of them will downsize their million dollar hollywood mansions and choose to live in a more modest, smaller, eco friendly home. And surely they would be willing to stop traveling as much on their chartered jets, and prefer to stay closer to home where they can tend to their solar panels and gardens. Right Mr. DiCaprio? I mean, we are on the cusp of extinction, right? It is a moral calling, is it not?
Dream on, my friend.
A physics based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037. CO2 change has no significant effect.
The drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are given at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com.
Racist…………………
Sexist and homophobic,too…but, hey, we’re all used to that!
I am sure it’s Bush’s fault.
Don’t mind out sarcastic peanut gallery, Dan. You make an excellent point. Since the late 90’s there has been a complete disconnect between the continued linear rise of atmospheric CO2 and the global temperature.
But….but….but….anyone not totally in lockstep with the AGW crowd HAS to be a racist, homophobic sexist Bush syncophant. As well as a denier–in this case, regarding the role of CO2 and any warming that might be taking place.
Damned Flat-Earthers!!!!
Damned Flat-Earthers!!!!
The ridicule tactic that the Left learned so well from Alinsky is pretty much ineffective WRT the GW debate, and I think that drives them nuts every bit as much as constantly being proven wrong.
If you prove AGW wrong, then you’re racist…
This article in the NYT was linked to from a similar article at HuffPo. Anyone else notice some glaring inconsistencies:
One of these days the Left is going to run out of lipstick.
Economic issues continue to top the list of most important problems
Thankfully, Obama continues to be laser focused on jobs. He said he would not rest until every American has a fair shake and a fair opportunity and that America works best when it expands from the middle out not the top down – or something like that.
He is still doing that right?
From the HuffPo piece:
I’d love to hear from someone who buys into this hooey just exactly what “combating climate change” means. Is it like combating poverty? Because we all know how that’s worked out — the transfer of trillions of dollars of wealth from producers to non-producers with, essentially, no measurable results.
I’d love to hear from someone who buys into this hooey just exactly what “combating climate change” means
Well obviously it means buying carbon credits while you fly around the world and give speeches, attend luncheons, and raise funds.
“Well obviously it means buying carbon credits while you fly around the world and give speeches, attend luncheons, and raise funds.”
Especially, if one (the Gore-acle) buys carbon credits from himself.
One of the more humorous (and ironic) aspects of the climate debate is the fact that the U.S. is the only major country to achieve the original Kyoto Protocol goal for CO2 reduction. That tells you two things: solving the “problem” is inextricably tied to a degradation of the economy; and the rest of the world, for all their talk, isn’t really all that concerned or interested.