A bleak future and Rush Limbaugh

[GW in Ohio]

I happened to catch a few minutes of the Rush Limbaugh radio show today, while running an errand in my car. It underscored for me why the human race is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions.

In his usual breezily self-confident manner, El Rushbo was citing a few instances of unusually cool temperatures as "evidence" that global warming is the bunk. (El Rushbo conveniently overlooks the fact that global warming has nothing to do with an occasional cool spell here and there; it's a gradual, inexorable, global process.)

But of course, facts have little to do with Rush Limbaugh's appeal. His conservative audience tunes in to have their prejudices and preferences validated and confirmed. ("If you hear it on the radio, it must be right. Right?")

El Rushbo then went on to declare that global warming was a liberal conspiracy to make you, the dittohead listener, give up your personal freedoms and surrender to ever-greater government control. (He actually said it was a liberal plot.)

And what personal freedoms are these liberals trying to take away from you?

The freedom to drive a gas-guzzling 8-cylinder car.
The freedom to run your air conditioner as much as you like.
The freedom to pollute the air and water in the name of jobs and the economy.
The freedom to produce garbage in ever-increasing amounts. (Recycle? Up yours!)
The freedom to continue to live a wasteful, luxurious lifestyle without any consideration of its effect on the environment.
The freedom to have as many kids as you want.

And when you consider that it's not just American conservatives who are giving the middle finger to any attempt to get them to behave in an ecologically responsible manner. There are about a billion Chinese who are dying to live the same wasteful, conservative Republican lifestyle. And there are probably another billion people in Asia who want it, too, and who would totally agree with Limbaugh's dittoheads that "the earth can take care of itself."

This is the world your kids and grandkids will inherit...a world where much of the earth that is now in "temperate" regions will be uninhabitable....a world where rising oceans have covered places like New York City, with economic consequences in the $trillions....a world where millions die of starvation and disease and the ones who survive will fight nasty wars over the dwindling supply of food and water.

We're fucked. But if that's too much for you to handle, tune in to Rush. He'll tell you it's all a lot of hooey and the United States is the greatest nation that ever existed and the future is rosy.

[avatar4321]

yeah ignore the scientists he was citing. Nevermind the fact that the man made global warming myth is finally being questioned now. Let's just announce Rush wrong because he has the audacity to question your secular religion.

I mean how dare people try to better their standard of living! How dare they have children! How dare people suggest that human lives are more important than animals! How dare people suggest that its good for people to work to better mankind and the world around us!

You have no problem taking away those freedoms and then complaining when there arent more jobs. I wonder why there arent more jobs! You complain about high gas prices when you dont let anyone explore and drill for more oil! You complain about how we have to give up all these freedoms so we can solve a problem thats half a century away with no evidence its even happening. Meanwhile we try to fix social security which we know is insolvent and you oppose it!

What the freak is wrong with you nutcases????

[LiberalNation]

Talk radio sucks and Rush is the devil. Well I've never actually listened to him cuz like I said talk radio sucks but from what I've read.......

[stephanie]

The World is Going to End....We're All Doomed....Doomed I tell ya....

When Madonna sells off eight of her nine homes, then I'll get more serious about buying a smaller.....SUV....:laugh2:


:poke:

[theHawk]

And what personal freedoms are these liberals trying to take away from you?

The freedom to drive a gas-guzzling 8-cylinder car.
The freedom to run your air conditioner as much as you like.
The freedom to pollute the air and water in the name of jobs and the economy.
The freedom to produce garbage in ever-increasing amounts. (Recycle? Up yours!)
The freedom to continue to live a wasteful, luxurious lifestyle without any consideration of its effect on the environment.
The freedom to have as many kids as you want.


Is this an actual quote or your generalized and skewed version?

[hjmick]

Talk radio sucks and Rush is the devil. Well I've never actually listened to him cuz like I said talk radio sucks but from what I've read.......

Well that is certainly how a person should form their opinions. Don't experience something yourself, just read articles about it written by people who can't stand it, then decide it sucks.

[Pale Rider]

And what personal freedoms are these liberals trying to take away from you?

The freedom to drive a gas-guzzling 8-cylinder car.
The freedom to run your air conditioner as much as you like.
The freedom to pollute the air and water in the name of jobs and the economy.
The freedom to produce garbage in ever-increasing amounts. (Recycle? Up yours!)
The freedom to continue to live a wasteful, luxurious lifestyle without any consideration of its effect on the environment.
The freedom to have as many kids as you want.

Tell it to all your idols in liberal sodom hollyweird. They're the worst offenders of all.

[Dilloduck]

The World is Going to End....We're All Doomed....Doomed I tell ya....

When Madonna sells off eight of her nine homes, then I'll get more serious about buying a smaller.....SUV....:laugh2:


:poke:

Agreed---It can't be all that critical. Wouldn't we be seeing some radical action being taken ? Even people who believe that aliens or God are showing up sell all their earthly possesions or go gather in a cave or something.

[LiberalNation]

Any global warming change will be gradual. The CO2 has to build up and then the earth has to heat up. We'll prolly be 5 degrees warmer in the next hundred(s) years.

[glockmail]

Talk radio sucks and Rush is the devil. Well I've never actually listened to him cuz like I said talk radio sucks but from what I've read.......
A closed minded liberal? Whouda thunk?

[LiberalNation]

lol, closed minded. For hating talk radio.

[glockmail]

....This is the world your kids and grandkids will inherit...a world where much of the earth that is now in "temperate" regions will be uninhabitable....a world where rising oceans have covered places like New York City, with economic consequences in the $trillions....a world where millions die of starvation and disease and the ones who survive will fight nasty wars over the dwindling supply of food and water...... Gee, I don't see you with bumper stickers supporting nuclear power. You musn't care about your kids future. :poke:

[avatar4321]

Talk radio sucks and Rush is the devil. Well I've never actually listened to him cuz like I said talk radio sucks but from what I've read.......

i love all these people who denouce something or someone as evil without listening to what they say.

[LiberalNation]

I said devil not evil and was joking.

[avatar4321]

Any global warming change will be gradual. The CO2 has to build up and then the earth has to heat up. We'll prolly be 5 degrees warmer in the next hundred(s) years.

wow a whole 5 degrees.... Panic everyone!

[avatar4321]

lol, closed minded. For hating talk radio.

no close minded for not listening to it before you decided you hate it.

[LiberalNation]

Hey just 5 degrees can effect a lot. Melt things, raise the sea level, make some deserts, fuck with the crops.

[LiberalNation]

no close minded for not listening to it before you decided you hate it.

I have listened to snatches of it and can say I hate it without doubt. Radios for music and talk shows just mess that up.

[Sitarro]

For a little reality check........

A Boeing 757 burns 1100 gallons of jet fuel an hour, a 737 burms close to 1000 gallons an hour. Continental, the fifth largest airline, flies 500 flights a day originating out of Houston, 7 days a week. They fly 300 more per day out of Houston, using smaller regional jets. The smallest of the 500 is a 737 burning 1000 per hour. A typical flight for the 737s is 3 hours each way. So, to make it simple, let's say all 500 flights are 737s flying the average time of 6 hrs. round trip. That comes to about 3 millions of gallons of high grade kerosene being burned by one part of an airline in one city 365 days a year.

If you drive a gas guzzler that only gets 10 miles to a gallon, 10,000 miles a year, you are burning an hour's worth of 737 fuel.

And you really think that getting people into those ugly ass Priuses will make a difference?

[Sitarro]

I have listened to snatches of it and can say I hate it without doubt. Radios for music and talk shows just mess that up.

You are a child, why would anyone expect you to want to listen to political talk...... I'm sure you spend your time listening to crap from whatever dimwitted black skam artist is hot right now. Listening to an idiot talking over someone elses lousy music about nothing...... that's typical of today's know nothing youth......... good choices.

[KarlMarx]

QUOTE: The freedom to drive a gas-guzzling 8-cylinder car.
REPLY: Yes, you should have the freedom to have a gas guzzling car, if you can afford it. That is what is called "a free market economy". So long as the person who drives the gas guzzling car doesn't expect the government to subsidize it (as would be the case if we switched to Hydrogen cars)

QUOTE: The freedom to run your air conditioner as much as you like.
REPLY: To use a relevant phrase "ditto".... if you can afford it. That is what is called "a free market economy". So long as the person doesn't expect the government to subsidize it.

QUOTE:The freedom to pollute the air and water in the name of jobs and the economy.
REPLY: No one advocates ruining the environment, not even Rush Limbaugh. In addition, we advocate using reason and hard science to dictate public policy on the environment rather than chicken little opportunists like Al Gore.

QUOTE:The freedom to produce garbage in ever-increasing amounts. (Recycle? Up yours!)
REPLY: Again, the free market should decide how much garbage you produce, not a government bureaucrat.

QUOTE:The freedom to continue to live a wasteful, luxurious lifestyle without any consideration of its effect on the environment.
REPLY: Yes, the freedom to live in a style that I can afford without a government bureaucrat looking over my shoulder and telling me how to live my life.

QUOTE: The freedom to have as many kids as you want
REPLY: So, do you want the United States to adopt a "one child policy" as China did? I don't need to tell you that China also has an unstated policy of coercing abortions on women who already have more than the State mandated limit. Our country is near zero population growth as it stands. If it weren't for immigration and immigrants (who tend to have more children than the rest of us), our birth rate would be lower still. Countries in Asia and in Africa have high birth rates, perhaps you favor using NGOs e.g. the International Monetary Fund to withhold funding on those countries unless they legalize abortion (as they already are). If that is the case, that makes you somewhat of an imperialist.

This is astonishing, you seem to be advocating a policy that dictates to people how to spend their wealth, how many children they can have, how to run their businesses and if I take it to its logical conclusion, what is produced and how much. In short, you seem to be advocating a command economy run by a centralized government bureaucracy.......

In short, whether you realize it or not, you seem to be advocating socialism or communism as a means to make the environment better....

However, the track record of communism's effect on the environment is a very poor one... in fact, "cataclysmic", comes to mind.... some of the worse environmental conditions are present in the former Soviet Union and in China. On the other hand, the cleanest countries in the world have free market capitalist economies.... that is not a coincidence.

P.S. we are already seeing the effects that ethanol fuel is having on the average Joe.... the price of beef and dairy products are going up... so the choice that liberals seem to be forcing on us is a dirty environment or being unable to afford to eat....

[red states rule]

yeah ignore the scientists he was citing. Nevermind the fact that the man made global warming myth is finally being questioned now. Let's just announce Rush wrong because he has the audacity to question your secular religion.

I mean how dare people try to better their standard of living! How dare they have children! How dare people suggest that human lives are more important than animals! How dare people suggest that its good for people to work to better mankind and the world around us!

You have no problem taking away those freedoms and then complaining when there arent more jobs. I wonder why there arent more jobs! You complain about high gas prices when you dont let anyone explore and drill for more oil! You complain about how we have to give up all these freedoms so we can solve a problem thats half a century away with no evidence its even happening. Meanwhile we try to fix social security which we know is insolvent and you oppose it!

What the freak is wrong with you nutcases????

You expect a liberal to deal in facts? Hell, if he did that he would be dead in the debate before it started

[red states rule]

Talk radio sucks and Rush is the devil. Well I've never actually listened to him cuz like I said talk radio sucks but from what I've read.......

I do like the way libs form their opinions and get their information - from the liberal websites and mouthpieces

[red states rule]

Hey just 5 degrees can effect a lot. Melt things, raise the sea level, make some deserts, fuck with the crops.

Yea, the Oscar sitting on Al Gore's desk will be uder water soon from the melting polar ice caps

[red states rule]

Don't you love it when Rush is right?


Confirming Limbaugh's Prediction, CBS Ignores Study Casting Doubt on Global Warming
By Brent Baker | August 9, 2007 - 21:06 ET
Two nights after NBC blamed hot summer temperatures on global warming, and on the very day a new scientific report cast doubt on a key assumption behind global warming forecasts, CBS on Thursday evening held global warming culpable for “oppressive August heat” that killed a man in East St. Louis. For an expert assessment, CBS reporter Kelly Cobiella turned only to the Weather Channel climatologist who last year suggested the American Meteorological Society should withhold credentials from any member who dares doubt the man-made global warming mantra: “Dr. Heidi Cullen is a climatologist for the Weather Channel, and sees a definite connection to global warming.” Cullen maintained: “The heat wave that we're seeing now is completely consistent with what we expect in a warmer world because all of our models show us that heat waves will become intense, more frequent, and they'll last longer.”

The CBS Evening News skipped, as Rush Limbuagh predicted the media would, a new study in which, as outlined in a press release, “the widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.” The posting on the university's site summarized the study published in a scientific journal: “Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.”

In highlighting the university's findings on Thursday, Limbaugh noted on his radio show that Spencer had received “no inquiries from the Drive-By Media” and predicted: “There probably won't be.” CBS has provided early confirmation.

On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, as recounted in my NewsBusters item, Anne Thompson asserted that “global land surface temperatures in January and April were likely the warmest since records began 120 years ago, extremes scientists say are consistent with an increase in carbon dioxide, man-made global warming.”

On her blog back in December, Heidi Cullen created a bit of controversy when she suggested those who don't agree with her on the cause and likely acceleration of global warming should be discredited:


“If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.”

For more, check Marc Morano's January post, “The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics,” on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's “Inhofe Press Blog.”

In May, Morano posted “Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming -- Now Skeptics; Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research.”

An excerpt from, “Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds,” a summary posted August 9 on the University of Alabama at Huntsville's Web site:


The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

"While low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight, most cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the Earth," Spencer said. With high altitude ice clouds their infrared heat trapping exceeds their solar shading effect.

In the tropics most cirrus-type clouds flow out of the upper reaches of thunderstorm clouds. As the Earth's surface warms -- due to either manmade greenhouse gases or natural fluctuations in the climate system -- more water evaporates from the surface. Since more evaporation leads to more precipitation, most climate researchers expected increased cirrus cloudiness to follow warming....

The only way to see how these new findings impact global warming forecasts is to include them in computerized climate models.

"The role of clouds in global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."...

When they tracked the daily evolution of a composite of fifteen of the strongest intraseasonal oscillations they found that although rainfall and air temperatures would be rising, the amount of infrared energy being trapped by the cloudy areas would start to decrease rapidly as the air warmed. This unexpected behavior was traced to the decrease in cirrus cloud cover.

The new results raise questions about some current theories regarding precipitation, clouds and the efficiency with which weather systems convert water vapor into rainfall. These are significant issues in the global warming debate.

"Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall," Spencer said. "Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise..."

"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."

Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to be controversial.

"I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming," he said. "But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/09/confirming-limbaughs-prediction-cbs-ignores-study-casting-doubt-global-

[red states rule]

Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?
By Noel Sheppard | August 9, 2007 - 11:30 ET
A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.

For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995.

McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998.

As McIntyre wrote Wednesday (emphasis added, h/t NBer dscott):

There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.

[...]

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.

As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn't such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen's team at the GISS, shouldn't it have been reported?

In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn't, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation.

Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story?

No, I don't either.

Post facto thought: If Hansen's team had made changes to the data which showed that ten of the ten warmest years in American history occurred since 1995, do you think that would have been reported?

Yeah, I do, too.

*****Update: This appears to be necessary given some very silly e-mail messages that I've received. Gore's claim concerning warmest years in history pertains to data for the entire planet. The changes at GISS are only for American data.

However, as e-mail messages from various scientists around the world have pointed out, American climate data collection is the finest on the planet. It is expected that when these changes are made to numbers across the globe, the worldwide rankings might see some changes as well.

Yet, still more to the point is the fact that American data were changed without any announcement.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public



Looks like global warming is not the crisis it has been hyped to be

[diuretic]

Looks like global warming is not the crisis it has been hyped to be

But what if it really is a crisis?

And even if it isn't a crisis right now, how long should we wait before we address it?

[red states rule]

But what if it really is a crisis?

And even if it isn't a crisis right now, how long should we wait before we address it?

So far the evidence points to the fact it is not a crisis. Looks like normal weather patterns to me

[red states rule]

But what if it really is a crisis?

And even if it isn't a crisis right now, how long should we wait before we address it?

Here is more

August 10, 2007
Twisting Science to Fit the Global Warming Template
By James Lewis

The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted, either by critics or data. Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed. But unless the critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data When it begins to look like predictions of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for. The media mobilize their templates to completely re-cast the information.


This process was fully in evidence yesterday when the global news service Reuters spun a report in Science magazine (which has been quietly starting to warn its readership that maybe it would be prudent to come in a bit from the end of the global warming limb) as if it confirmed the seriousness of global warning, when in fact the report contained devastating information of flaws in the doomsters methodology and warned that the disaster has been postponed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/twisting_science_to_fit_the_gl.html

[PostmodernProphet]

okay folks, listen up....we DO need to deal with global warming....oh, it's got nothing to do with changing cars or changing houses....but consider this.....the earth occasionally gets cooler and occasionally gets hotter.....it's that time in the earth's life that things are getting hotter....if it's anything like the other times that happened, then ice is going to melt and oceans are going to get higher.....

there is nothing that we do about greenhouse gases that is going to change that....nothing at all......but here is what we better start planning for....

if the ocean is going to go up 2 meters, we better start thinking about building a 3 meter levy around anything we want to keep that is less than 2 meters above sea level.....ya think?

[red states rule]

okay folks, listen up....we DO need to deal with global warming....oh, it's got nothing to do with changing cars or changing houses....but consider this.....the earth occasionally gets cooler and occasionally gets hotter.....it's that time in the earth's life that things are getting hotter....if it's anything like the other times that happened, then ice is going to melt and oceans are going to get higher.....

there is nothing that we do about greenhouse gases that is going to change that....nothing at all......but here is what we better start planning for....

if the ocean is going to go up 2 meters, we better start thinking about building a 3 meter levy around anything we want to keep that is less than 2 meters above sea level.....ya think?


IF is the key word in you post

There is not a problem - the hysteria over global warming is a manufactured crisis

[diuretic]

IF is the key word in you post

There is not a problem - the hysteria over global warming is a manufactured crisis

"IF" signals a recognition for a contingency plan.

What effective business or organisation ignores the need for a contingency plan?

[glockmail]

okay folks, listen up....we DO need to deal with global warming....oh, it's got nothing to do with changing cars or changing houses....but consider this.....the earth occasionally gets cooler and occasionally gets hotter.....it's that time in the earth's life that things are getting hotter....if it's anything like the other times that happened, then ice is going to melt and oceans are going to get higher.....

there is nothing that we do about greenhouse gases that is going to change that....nothing at all......but here is what we better start planning for....

if the ocean is going to go up 2 meters, we better start thinking about building a 3 meter levy around anything we want to keep that is less than 2 meters above sea level.....ya think?

As long as federal dollars are not involved I'd say those rick folk who live right on the ocean should build their own damn levies.

In the meantime I'd err on the side of caution and build as many nuke plants as possible to reduce carbon emmissions. By my crude estimate about 500 or so would replace all the imported oil. Gee, that might increase our national security as well, by denying the arabs and commies access to our cash.

[glockmail]

"IF" signals a recognition for a contingency plan.

..... Like mine. :poke:

[red states rule]

As long as federal dollars are not involved I'd say those rick folk who live right on the ocean should build their own damn levies.

In the meantime I'd err on the side of caution and build as many nuke plants as possible to reduce carbon emmissions. By my crude estimate about 500 or so would replace all the imported oil. Gee, that might increase our national security as well, by denying the arabs and commies access to our cash.

Maybe Al could park his private jets, and sell a few of his mansions, and cut back on HIS energy use - and give that money to these causes

[diuretic]

Like mine. :poke:

I said a "plan" not a "recipe for disaster" :slap: :laugh2:

[red states rule]

I said a "plan" not a "recipe for disaster" :slap: :laugh2:

If the enviro kooks have their way, our standard of living and ur economy will go down the drain

That is a "recipe for disaster"

[diuretic]

If the enviro kooks have their way, our standard of living and ur economy will go down the drain

That is a "recipe for disaster"

Act now and act reasonably, wait and act urgently and drastically.

[red states rule]

Act now and act reasonably, wait and act urgently and drastically.

act of what - a myth and unprove problem?

[diuretic]

act of what - a myth and unprove problem?

A myth can be a pointer to future action. The myth - in many cultures - of the deluge is one. Let's be like Noah and be prudent, don't you think?

[red states rule]

A myth can be a pointer to future action. The myth - in many cultures - of the deluge is one. Let's be like Noah and be prudent, don't you think?

So far, in the last 30 years all the doom and gloom forcasts have fallen flat.

Al Gore bellowed the Earth only has ten years left so why bother doing anything?

[diuretic]

So far, in the last 30 years all the doom and gloom forcasts have fallen flat.

Al Gore bellowed the Earth only has ten years left so why bother doing anything?

I never would have pegged Al for an End of Days type. Damn, I'm disappointed.

Anyway, you're right. So far so good..............as the stockbrocker said when he got to the 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th....:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I never would have pegged Al for an End of Days type. Damn, I'm disappointed.

Anyway, you're right. So far so good..............as the stockbrocker said when he got to the 29th, 28th, 27th, 26th....:laugh2:



Al is all his hysteria

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2006410004-2006420091,00.html

[PostmodernProphet]

There is not a problem - the hysteria over global warming is a manufactured crisis

lol.....you rmember that wooly mammoth they found in a glacier with food in his mouth......he once said "global cooling?....nothing to worry about....manufactured crisis"..........

[PostmodernProphet]

In the meantime I'd err on the side of caution and build as many nuke plants as possible to reduce carbon emmissions. By my crude estimate about 500 or so would replace all the imported oil.

interesting.....after we cram a nuke plant into the trunk of YOUR car and 499 others, what are the rest of us going to do to drive to work.....

[red states rule]

lol.....you rmember that wooly mammoth they found in a glacier with food in his mouth......he once said "global cooling?....nothing to worry about....manufactured crisis"..........

So far all the doom and gloom predictions have fallen flat. Hell I remember the Newseel cover story in the 70's talking about how the US is heading to another Ice Age

[red states rule]

interesting.....after we cram a nuke plant into the trunk of YOUR car and 499 others, what are the rest of us going to do to drive to work.....

Your point of that rant is?

[red states rule]

Here are some great examples of the rants from the enviro wackos that I grew up with - and they never happened

We're Doomed Again
Paul Ehrlich has never been right. Why does anyone still listen to him?

BY RONALD BAILEY
Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Environmentalist Paul Ehrlich has proved himself to be a stupendously bad prophet. In 1968 he declared: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." They didn't. Indeed, a "green revolution" nearly tripled the world's food supply. In 1975, he predicted that, by the mid-1980s, "mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity," in which "accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." Far from it. Between 1975 and 2000 the World Bank's commodity price index for minerals and metals fell by nearly 50%. In other words, we abound in "key minerals." Naturally, Mr. Ehrlich has won a MacArthur Foundation genius award--and a Heinz Award for the environment. (Yes, that Heinz: Teresa Heinz Kerry is chairman of the award's sponsoring philanthropy.)

So why pay him any notice? Because he is a reverse Cassandra. In "The Illiad," the prophetess Cassandra makes true predictions and no one believes her; Mr. Ehrlich makes false predictions and they are widely believed. The gloomier he is and the faultier he proves to be as a prophet, the more honored he becomes, even in his own country.

Any thinking person will thus want to know, accolades aside, what actual effect "One With Nineveh" will have on the intellectual environment. The title is taken from "Recessional," the poem in which Rudyard Kipling warned Victorian England that it, too, could fall, like the capital of the ancient kingdom of Assyria. Mr. Ehrlich--writing with his wife, Anne--asserts that "humanity's prospective collision with the natural world" means that "what is at risk now is global civilization."
"One With Nineveh" begins by recycling the now familiar catechism of environmentalist doom, but most of it is devoted to the Ehrlichs' hugely ambitious plans for reorganizing the world's economy and systems of government to ward off apocalypse. Homer used the word hubris to refer to this aspect of human nature.

The "prospective collision with the natural world" is supposed to happen when human population, economic growth and technological progress reach some horrible point of intersection on a chart of global doom. In the Ehrlichs' simplistic summary, environmental Impact equals Population x Affluence x Technology, the notorious I=PAT identity. Impact is, of course, always negative. One notes that the three factors aren't merely added together; their allegedly deleterious effects are multiplied.

History shows that the I=PAT identity largely gets it backward. Population is at worst neutral, while affluence and technology, far from harming nature, actually promote its flourishing. It is in the rich, developed countries that the air becomes clearer, the streams clearer, the forests more expansive. While the Ehrlichs put forward a few good ideas--such as replacing income taxes with consumption taxes and eliminating government subsidies--most of their analysis consists of antimarket screeds and hackneyed corporation-bashing.

The Ehrlichs also underplay the good news. Globally, women are having fewer and fewer babies, so the world's population will likely peak at around eight billion in 50 years or so. The agronomist Paul Waggoner has argued that if farmers around the world can raise their productivity to current U.S. levels--even using current technology, nothing newer--they can easily feed 10 billion people, with better diets. And they can do so, according to his projections, using half the land they now farm, thus sparing more land for nature. The chief hope for that result is precisely the market that the Ehrlichs decry, and the economic dynamism that comes with it.

Of course, there are environmental problems, although not the global warming the authors fear. (Satellite data now suggest that such warming will be mild over the next century--about a degree Celsius.) But the depletion of fisheries and tropical forests is real enough. Alas, the Ehrlichs and most of their ecological confreres miss the central reason for it: the tragedy of the commons, where nobody owns a resource--forest, fish, water--and thus no one has a reason to protect it. By contrast, enclosing the commons, by assigning owners, internalizes costs and benefits, and allows markets to determine the value of any given resource. With characteristic wrongheadedness, they advocate instead eroding property rights, thus enlarging the commons and tending to make environmental problems worse.
In 1971, Mr. Ehrlich told Look magazine: "When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972." What is Greek for "this is ridiculous"?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103

[PostmodernProphet]

As long as federal dollars are not involved I'd say those rick folk who live right on the ocean should build their own damn levies.

at the very least we need laws prohibiting liberals from migrating inland...

[red states rule]

at the very least we need laws prohibiting liberals from migrating inland...

No, let them go to Canada or Europe

[GW in Ohio]

This is from Wikipedia...


Earth's climate changes in response to external forcing, including variations in its orbit around the sun (orbital forcing),[9][10][11] volcanic eruptions, and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[12] identifies elevated levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available.

Translation: Although right-wing wackos and Rush Limbaugh continue to put forth alternate explanations for the warming trend, the consensus of the scientific community is that elevated levels of greenhouse gases are due to human activity.

[PostmodernProphet]

Your point of that rant is?


lol, it ought to have been obvious....we import oil to run cars.....nuclear power does not run cars.....therefore building 500 nuclear power plants will do nothing to change oil imports.....

[diuretic]

I remember Ehrlich. It's funny but here in our underpopulated huge country he was very important in the mid-1960s. I say "funny" because we have a country that is the size of the United States (sans Alaska) and back then a population of about 17-18 million people (21 million now). But as he said, your country has to sustain you. And when you look at it, most of Australia is a desert.

Funny thing about prophets. When we listen to them and take action to avoid their prophecies we call them frauds. When we don't and everything turns to shit, we worship them.

[red states rule]

This is from Wikipedia...



Translation: Although right-wing wackos and Rush Limbaugh continue to put forth alternate explanations for the warming trend, the consensus of the scientific community is that elevated levels of greenhouse gases are due to human activity.

You must have ignored post # 48

All the doom and gloom predictions never happened

[red states rule]

lol, it ought to have been obvious....we import oil to run cars.....nuclear power does not run cars.....therefore building 500 nuclear power plants will do nothing to change oil imports.....

Building nucks is part of the overall plan for energy independence

Removing the handcuffs from the oil companies is also part of the solution

[red states rule]

I remember Ehrlich. It's funny but here in our underpopulated huge country he was very important in the mid-1960s. I say "funny" because we have a country that is the size of the United States (sans Alaska) and back then a population of about 17-18 million people (21 million now). But as he said, your country has to sustain you. And when you look at it, most of Australia is a desert.

Funny thing about prophets. When we listen to them and take action to avoid their prophecies we call them frauds. When we don't and everything turns to shit, we worship them.

He is a perfect example of the kook left who made a living by fooling and scaring the masses

[PostmodernProphet]

Building nucks is part of the overall plan for energy independence

Removing the handcuffs from the oil companies is also part of the solution


which has nothing at all to do with what he said or I responded.....read the posts....

[red states rule]

which has nothing at all to do with what he said or I responded.....read the posts....

You are not very receptive to answers to your questions. Perhaps they are not the answers you want

[PostmodernProphet]

You are not very receptive to answers to your questions.

??....I don't consider "Your point of that rant is?" as an answer to any question......

[red states rule]

??....I don't consider "Your point of that rant is?" as an answer to any question......

I was trying to use logic and thiught to understand your rant. My fault

[PostmodernProphet]

please be honest red, you were trying to pick a fight....

[red states rule]

please be honest red, you were trying to pick a fight....

Not at all. You keep tossing out the enviro wacko talking points and I did not see what that post had to do with the topic at hand

[dan]

The World is Going to End....We're All Doomed....Doomed I tell ya....

When Madonna sells off eight of her nine homes, then I'll get more serious about buying a smaller.....SUV....:laugh2:


:poke:

Ah, the classic "they're doing it, so I'm going to do it, too" defense. That one never really worked for me when I was eight.


IF is the key word in you post

There is not a problem - the hysteria over global warming is a manufactured crisis

Manufactured crisis, such as, I don't know, "weapons of mass destruction"?

[GW in Ohio]

I remember Ehrlich. It's funny but here in our underpopulated huge country he was very important in the mid-1960s. I say "funny" because we have a country that is the size of the United States (sans Alaska) and back then a population of about 17-18 million people (21 million now). But as he said, your country has to sustain you. And when you look at it, most of Australia is a desert.

Funny thing about prophets. When we listen to them and take action to avoid their prophecies we call them frauds. When we don't and everything turns to shit, we worship them.

Are you trying to say that overpopulation is not a problem?

We have too many people now for the earth to sustain...too many people consuming too much of the earth's resources, and producing too much pollution.

You've got a billion Chinese just itching to live the American lifestyle and add to the pollution that's already causing problems like global warming.

[PostmodernProphet]

enviro wacko talking points

???....what is 'environmental whacko' about pointing out that building nuclear power plants will have absolutely NO impact upon our use of oil?

[PostmodernProphet]

Building nucks is part of the overall plan for energy independence


actually, it isn't.....most electrical energy in the US is produced using either coal or natural gas......we import neither......

[PostmodernProphet]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Sources_of_Electricity_in_the_US_2005_New.png/800px-Sources_of_Electricity_in_the_US_2005_New.png

[PostmodernProphet]

we import neither......
well, I better clarify that.....we have started importing natural gas from Canada lately, but the US still has some of the largest natural gas and coal reserves in the world.....

[red states rule]

Ah, the classic "they're doing it, so I'm going to do it, too" defense. That one never really worked for me when I was eight.



Manufactured crisis, such as, I don't know, "weapons of mass destruction"?

Why do libs have a problem living their lives the same way they lecture us to live ours?

So did all the Kurds die from the common cold, or were they gassed by Saddmas WMD's? Remember, for years the Dems said Saddam had them - even in 2001

[avatar4321]

You expect a liberal to deal in facts? Hell, if he did that he would be dead in the debate before it started

yeah. I do. I know its hard to believe, but i expect people to be the best they can. I expect them to be civil. I expect them to be honest. I expect them to look at facts. Regardless of whether they are liberal conservative.

People act how they are expected to act alot of the time. If little is expected, they would give much. if much is expected, they will put out the effort.

I know you like to have your say in things, but you really need to get a bigger picture. You need to be alittle more tactful in what you say. Focus on quality of what you say not quantity.

[avatar4321]

But what if it really is a crisis?

And even if it isn't a crisis right now, how long should we wait before we address it?

People dont have control over the climate. the earth warms and heats regularly. Our job is to adapt. Not to control

[red states rule]

yeah. I do. I know its hard to believe, but i expect people to be the best they can. I expect them to be civil. I expect them to be honest. I expect them to look at facts. Regardless of whether they are liberal conservative.

People act how they are expected to act alot of the time. If little is expected, they would give much. if much is expected, they will put out the effort.

I know you like to have your say in things, but you really need to get a bigger picture. You need to be alittle more tactful in what you say. Focus on quality of what you say not quantity.

I call them as I see them and do not sugar coat it

I like to think of myself as a straight shooter

[avatar4321]

This is from Wikipedia...



Translation: Although right-wing wackos and Rush Limbaugh continue to put forth alternate explanations for the warming trend, the consensus of the scientific community is that elevated levels of greenhouse gases are due to human activity.

science doesnt deal with consensus. Science is a field of facts. Having a hundred people agree about something doesnt make it a fact.

For a thousand years scientists believed the world was flat. That didnt make it so. Consensus isnt science.

Especially when you are polling non climate related scientists.

[red states rule]

Are you trying to say that overpopulation is not a problem?

We have too many people now for the earth to sustain...too many people consuming too much of the earth's resources, and producing too much pollution.

You've got a billion Chinese just itching to live the American lifestyle and add to the pollution that's already causing problems like global warming.

and all the doom and gloom perdiction Ehrlich made - never happened

why should we keep listening to the kook left when they never get anything right?

[avatar4321]

Are you trying to say that overpopulation is not a problem?

We have too many people now for the earth to sustain...too many people consuming too much of the earth's resources, and producing too much pollution.

You've got a billion Chinese just itching to live the American lifestyle and add to the pollution that's already causing problems like global warming.

no its not a problem. and im going to purposesly do the opposite of what these overpopulation nuts say. Because I want lots of kids

[red states rule]

no its not a problem. and im going to purposesly do the opposite of what these overpopulation nuts say. Because I want lots of kids

So you are going to live your life the way your want to, and be happy?

You selfish meanspirited bastard

[red states rule]

Oh no!!!

More news that goes against the hysteria of global warming


Are Greenland’s Glaciers Growing and Temperatures Cooling?
By Noel Sheppard | August 10, 2007 - 11:21 ET

One of the keys to the manmade global warming myth being espoused by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and the good folks at the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that glaciers in Greenland have been melting in the last fifty years at an alarming rate.

In fact, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) claimed to witness such evidence of global warming during recent trips there.

Yet, a paper written by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change, and published Monday by the Science and Public Policy Institute stated that not only have temperatures been declining in Greenland in recent years, but also glaciers have actually expanded a bit (emphasis added):

The Greenland ice sheet would appear to have experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was likely host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level.

[...]

Hanna and Cappelen (2003) determined the air temperature history of coastal southern Greenland from 1958-2001, based on data from eight Danish Meteorological Institute stations in coastal and near-coastal southern Greenland, as well as the concomitant sea surface temperature (SST) history of the Labrador Sea off southwest Greenland, based on three previously published and subsequently extended SST data sets (Parker et al., 1995; Rayner et al., 1996; Kalnay et al., 1996). Their analyses revealed that the coastal temperature data showed a cooling of 1.29°C over the period of study, while two of the three SST databases also depicted cooling: by 0.44°C in one case and by 0.80°C in the other. In addition, it was determined that the cooling was "significantly inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past few decades."

In an even broader study based on mean monthly temperatures of 37 Arctic and 7 sub-Arctic stations, as well as temperature anomalies of 30 grid-boxes from the updated data set of Jones, Przybylak (2000) found that (1) "in the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s," (2) "even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years," (3) "since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend," and (4) "the level of temperature in Greenland in the last 10-20 years is similar to that observed in the 19th century." These findings led him to conclude that the meteorological record "shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect," because, in his words, "the temperature predictions produced by numerical climate models significantly differ from those actually observed."

Hmmm. So, glaciers are actually expanding, and temperatures in this region are currently cooler than in the '30s and '50s.

Not what the alarmists on the left and in the media want you to think, is it?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/are-greenland-s-glaciers-expanding-temperatures-cooling

[PostmodernProphet]

Red....what is your response to the historical data regarding temperature change cycles?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

do you agree that it is warmer now than it was about thirty thousand years ago?

[red states rule]

Red....what is your response to the historical data regarding temperature change cycles?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

do you agree that it is warmer now than it was about thirty thousand years ago?

Weather records only go back to the mid 1800's.

Did they have weathermen 30,000 years ago?

[PostmodernProphet]

Did they have weathermen 30,000 years ago?


???...uh, no Red.....they determine the temperature by studying the structure of ice crystals in core samples they took from polar ice.....

you DO agree there was an ice age, right?.....that thing that dumped all those rocks in Mason County, Michigan?.....

[red states rule]

???...uh, no Red.....they determine the temperature by studing the structure of ice crystals in core samples they took from polar ice.....

So we have warmed a couple of degrees in 30,000 years - is that reason to panic and go the way of the enviro wacko crowd?

[PostmodernProphet]

is that reason to panic and go the way of the enviro wacko crowd

??....actually, I don't fee very panicky....and as far as I am aware I have gone in a completely different direction from the envirowhacko crowd.....all I have done is suggested that, since history tells us it is likely to get warmer and when it gets warmer the ocean levels rise, instead of worrying about changing CO2 emissions to 'save us' from global warming, we ought to realize Bangledesh and Dade County, Florida are going to get a bit soggy and put together a plan to deal with it.....

[PostmodernProphet]

So we have warmed a couple of degrees in 30,000 years -

and personally, I am sort of glad it warmed up a couple of degrees....otherwise there would still be a fifty foot tall wall of ice about fifty miles due north of my back yard.......

[red states rule]

??....actually, I don't fee very panicky....and as far as I am aware I have gone in a completely different direction from the envirowhacko crowd.....all I have done is suggested that, since history tells us it is likely to get warmer and when it gets warmer the ocean levels rise, instead of worrying about changing CO2 emissions to 'save us' from global warming, we ought to realize Bangledesh and Dade County, Florida are going to get a bit soggy and put together a plan to deal with it.....

In the winter when it is cold we are told it is globalw arming. In the summer when it is hot we are told it is global waming

The best thing I read that puts it all in perspective is this

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.




Then we have this classic........


Al, It’s Cold Outside"
by Robert Yoho, Columnist and Senior Editor

January 20, 2004

"Eye on Conservatism"

While New York City was experiencing its coldest day in decades, former Vice President Al Gore gave a speech there accusing the Bush administration of implementing policies that are directly responsible for global warming. The speech was sponsored by MoveOn.org, the left wing fringe group that is quickly becoming the militant mainstream of today’s Democrat Party.

"I don’t think there is any longer a credible basis," Gore said, "for doubting that the Earth’s atmosphere is heating up because of global warming."

Really, Al? Please tell that to the people of New England, who are seeing their heating bills soar as the mercury plunges and are desperately counting the remaining days until spring. No doubt many of them wish there was some hard evidence to substantiate the unproven theory of global warming!

Before the speech, sources said that Gore told his advisors, "The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming. The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

To call this speech another Gore "gaffe" would be remarkably charitable. Although several of his senior advisors warned against it, Gore proceeded to deliver this discourse while much of the Northeast was experiencing near-record frigid temperatures and wind chill extremes. It also lends further proof to the idea that Gore is not only out of touch with the American people, but that he is also out in the cold when it comes to reality.

As one of the fifteen or twenty people who have actually read Gore’s 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance," I can firmly state that the former vice president is out-of-step with everyday Americans and disconnected from legitimate environmental science. But then again, the self-professed inventor of the internet has never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Even the former vice president knows that scientists and the results of their climate models do not reach a consensus on global climate changes. He also knows that these changes are cyclical.

Speaking before a large crowd at the Beacon Theater in Manhattan, Gore trotted out the same tired allegations that every Democrat has leveled against every Republican president or GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan. He accused the current administration of being "wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining industries."

One would think these limousine liberals could eventually come up with some new material.

Gore criticized the Bush-Cheney administration of trying to open up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling and for not ratifying the Kyoto treaty, an agreement that would devastate our economy and lead to massive unemployment while it rewarded developing nations that do not currently meet our own economic standards.

"While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage," Gore said in his speech, "the real truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors, he is a moral coward."

I will be the first to admit that it takes more than one’s share of chutzpah to lecture people on global warming during the midst of Arctic temperatures. But are we expected to believe that it’s an act of extreme moral courage for Al Gore to go out shilling for the wealthy Democrat contributors of MoveOn.org? No, this was the same type of cheap political pandering that he criticizes in others.

This speech to the frozen citizens of New York was also given a chilly reception by Republicans on Capitol Hill. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, said it was "fitting that Mr. Gore chose one of the coldest days of the year to spread false information about the Bush administration's record on global warming."

"Mother Nature didn't agree with his message, and neither do I," the congressman said. "Al, it's cold outside."

Yes, it most certainly is cold outside! Moreover, everybody but Al Gore knows it. While New Yorkers are suffering from frigid temperatures and near-record wind chills, they can all feel better that "Woodsy" Al Gore blew into town, spreading his message on the dangers of global warming. Nothing could be more welcome in the Big Apple right now than a little hot air! ***

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/yoho/qtr1/0120.htm


Then we have this gem..........


Arctic Global Warming Expedition Cancelled Due To Extreme Cold
Damaged gear, frostbite, extreme cold combine to compromise explorers' safety
imagine that poetic justice perhaps God is sending them a message that they ignore.

I guess its not as big of a deal as they seem to hope as these types keep trying to defy nature and prove they no better then the creator but somehow the Creator always seems to show their folly.
Statement from explorers to students and teachers who are following expedition included.

WARD HUNT ISLAND, CANADA (March 12, 2007) -- World-renowned polar explorers and educators, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, today suspended their historic expedition to the North Pole seven days in, citing severe safety concerns due to a combination of damaged gear, frostbite and extreme cold.

By canceling their expedition, their safety concerns are no longer physically threatening, though the two feared continuing the journey would have increased the likelihood of their endangerment.

They landed on Canada's Ward Hunt Island last Tuesday, when they began their expedition. On Saturday, they decided to suspend the journey and return to Ward Hunt Island, which they reached yesterday. A plane will pick them up today, weather permitting, and take them to Resolute, Canada, where this week they will fly back to the Twin Cities.

For the past 20 years the two have made history in various expeditions to both Poles, and have inspired millions worldwide to pursue their dreams. Students follow their expeditions online, and Bancroft and Arnesen frequently distribute updates to them. The goal of this year's expedition has been to raise awareness among students and adults worldwide on the impact of global warming on the Arctic region. Even one week into this journey, classrooms worldwide already were following their progress, submitting questions and offering messages of encouragement. Bancroft and Arnesen have issued a joint statement to students and teachers at the conclusion of this document.

Bancroft (51, Scandia, Minn.) and Arnesen (53, Oslo, Norway) will continue to broadcast information about International Polar Year and talk with students on the impact of global warming via: online reports, interviews with other explorers, hosting scientists and other activities at www.BancroftArnesen.com; and classroom visits. They currently do not plan to continue the expedition this year, and have not made a decision for another attempt next year or beyond.

Bancroft and Arnesen cite a combination of three primary situations that prompted their decision:

Frostbite

Arnesen has frostbite on three toes on her left foot, including the big toe, which is the most severely damaged. After examining the foot, both have determined that continuing the expedition, which included the two traveling on foot 16 hours a day in frigid temperatures, would significantly increase the likelihood Arnesen would lose one or all of the damaged toes. By leaving now, they are confident Arnesen will not have to face having any of the toes amputated.

Damaged Gear
On Wednesday last week, one day into the expedition, a plane landing near Bancroft and Arnesen collided with the women's gear, puncturing a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes. The two spent the day repairing the gear. While they initially thought the repairs were adequate for continuing the expedition unhindered, in recent days they feel their gear was compromised, particularly on Arnesen's snowshoe, which is for the same foot with frostbite.

Extreme Cold and Nighttime Conditions
The first few weeks of the expedition are, as expected, among the coldest of the journey, with darkness most of the day and night. Bancroft and Arnesen in the initial days reported daytime temperatures as low as ? 58 F (-50 C). During the night, they estimated temperatures at times to be as low as - 103 F (-75 C). With gear damaged and frostbite setting in, the extreme cold was even further comprising their safety. Traveling any further in these conditions would have made it more difficult and less safe to send in rescue operations.

The two will issue more details in the coming days and weeks at www.BancroftArnesen.com.

Joint Statement Issued by Bancroft and Arnesen to Students and Teachers
Bancroft and Arnesen have issued the following statement, which will appear on their Web site (www.BancroftArnesen.com) beginning this afternoon.

"Sometimes in life it's the little things that add up to the big stuff. In our seven days on the ice here in the Arctic, a series of events ? some unforeseen, some anticipated ? combined to give us great concern that it would no longer be safe for us to continue our expedition.

"As a result, today (Monday) we will end our Arctic expedition when an aircraft takes us off the ice at Ward Hunt Island in Canada, weather permitting. From here, we?ll fly to Resolute, Canada, to await a flight back to the Twin Cities, Minnesota. Ann will return to Scandia, Minnesota, near the Twin Cities. Soon after, Liv will fly back to Oslo, Norway."

"To the teachers and students across the globe who have been following our journey over this precious region, you have inspired us with your interest and excitement. We've heard that many of you have sent us e-mail messages; we look forward to reading upon our return. Here's why we decided to come back:

"Our gear was damaged last week on the first day of the expedition. We thought our repairs were sufficient, but in recent days Liv began suffering frostbite in some of her toes. She'll be fine, but all indications were that if we continued onward, she would have suffered permanent damage and may have even lost one or more of her toes. The deep cold here only made matters worse. One night, outside our tent, we think it might have gotten as low as - 103 F (-75 C). Even during the day, we measured ? 58 F (-50 C).

"We've each had 20 years' experience in the Arctic and Antarctic, and are fully aware of the dangers that can arise when you don?t make safety your greatest concern."

"The goal of this expedition is to help you learn more about global warming; we realize that it is ironic that frostbite and the cold temperatures contributed to our return. But, please know that global warming is real, and with it can come extreme unpredictable changes in temperature. Evidence abounds within this region and in our few days here we already observed some of its evidence."

"Our commitment to helping you learn more about global warming remains stronger than ever. Our team has spent many months developing the www.BancroftArnesen.com site to help you understand more about global warming, and to learn what you can do to prevent further climate change. We hope you'll continue exploring this site."

"In fact, we still plan to host an 'ask a scientist' interactive seminar on our site every week through the remainder of the school year, where you can ask prominent scientists and other explorers about climate change. You can also take an International Polar Year quiz and participate in other activities. Beyond that, we hope you'll continue talking with your teachers, families and friends about slowing this trend."

"Right now we are focused on returning to our home countries, but in the weeks and months ahead we'll be sharing our plans for our next adventures. Whether it's on the ice or in the classrooms, we look forward to speaking with you soon. Best wishes, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen."

http://northstatesman.com:2005/Statesman/2007/03/arctic_global_warming_expediti.html#more

[PostmodernProphet]

The best thing I read that puts it all in perspective is this

no, the best thing you've read that puts it all in perspective is that graph above.....unless things are a whole lot different this time than they were the last four times, it not only is hotter now than it was 30,000 years ago, it's going to get hotter before it starts getting colder again....

there is nothing that any human being can do that is going to change that.....no matter how many cars you take off the road or factories you shut down....it's going to get warmer....and when it gets warmer, ice melts....and when ice melts it turns to water, so water levels are going up....

now if you live on top of the chalk cliffs of Dover, that won't mean much.....but there are parts of the world where it's going to mean a lot

http://www.jri.org.uk/image/bangladesh-map.jpg


and if I lived upstream from someplace where it meant a lot, I would give some thought to whether it's cheaper to solve the problem of relocating people now, or fighting a war at the border to keep them out, later.....

[red states rule]

so if there is nothing we can do to stop our certain death - why don't we close this thread and move on?

Pardon me, this global warming is getting to me - I need to crank up the A/C a little more

[PostmodernProphet]

so if there is nothing we can do to stop our certain death

sigh.....I was hoping you would be brighter than that, Red....unless you live in the southern third of Bangladesh, it isn't likely you will die from global warming....and even then only if you don't join the other 80% of it's population thats going to be packing up and heading north.....

here in the US we have to figure out what to do with the millions of folks who live in Miami and the south third of Louisiana, cuz unless they grow gills, sometime in the next 50-1000 years, they are going to be underwater.....

[red states rule]

sigh.....I was hoping you would be brighter than that, Red....unless you live in the southern third of Bangladesh, it isn't likely you will die from global warming....and even then only if you don't join the other 80% of it's population thats going to be packing up and heading north.....

here in the US we have to figure out what to do with the millions of folks who live in Miami and the south third of Louisiana, cuz unless they grow gills, sometime in the next 50-1000 years, they are going to be underwater.....

You can believe all the global warming crap if you wish - I will strart to think there may be something to it when Al parks his private jets, sells a couple of his mansions, and stop riding around in limos

In other words, when he lives his life the way he wants me to

[PostmodernProphet]

I will strart to think there may be something to it when Al parks his private jets, sells a couple of his mansions, and stop riding around in limos



so, basically what you think is controlled by reacting to what Al Gore thinks?....unfortunately, I think that is true.....it's time you start thinking for yourself, Red......

[red states rule]

so, basically what you think is controlled by reacting to what Al Gore thinks?....unfortunately, I think that is true.....it's time you start thinking for yourself, Red......

I knwo it asking alot for libs to lead by example - but it would show he is worried about gloabl wamring. But then again, he knows it is all a hoax - as I do

[red states rule]

British Documentary: Global Warming 'Biggest Scam of Modern Times'
By Matthew Sheffield | March 7, 2007 - 01:27 ET
A British television station is set to do something that no American network (including Fox News) has ever done--air a lengthy documentary arguing that global warming is not caused by humans.

The Washington Times has the story:

With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."

The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.[...]

In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."

The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."

Channel 4 says that the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors, who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology.

There's lots more:

Scientists in the Channel 4 documentary cite what they claim is another discrepancy involving conventional research, saying that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, after which temperatures around the world fell for four decades.

Mr. Durkin's skeptical specialists view this as a flaw in the official view, because the worldwide economic boom that followed the end of World War II produced more carbon dioxide, and therefore should have meant a rise in global temperatures -- something he says did not happen.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" also questions an assertion by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, published last month, that it was backed by some 2,500 of the world's leading scientists.

Another of Mr. Durkin's professors, Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he says. "It's not true."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11241
________________________________
Al Gore at his best


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZrhG2iT3H0

__________________________________

Pelosi Talks Global Warming in Germany as Late-May Snows Rock the Region
By Noel Sheppard | May 30, 2007 - 10:42 ET
This is really getting hysterical. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) tours Europe to discuss the imminent doom to the planet at the hands of the left’s recent bogeyman anthropogenic global warming, late-May snows are falling all around her.

Honestly, folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

As she set out on her journey, such late-season white stuff hit parts of America, Canada, and Great Britain as reported by NewsBusters Tuesday.

Even better, as she met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a late-season snowstorm rocked Germany, Switzerland, Austria, France, and Italy.

As reported by England’s Daily Mail (hilarious emphasis added throughout):

Freak snow, freezing temperatures and tropical storms across Europe are making the Bank Holiday washout here look almost pleasant.

In Spitzing in Germany, locals have been forced to wrap up after ten centimetres of snow brought out the snowploughs for the first time this year.


It was the same story in towns close to the Alps in Austria, Switzerland and even northern Italy where temperatures in May routinely climb into the 80s.

In one Swiss valley, 3,000 were trapped in hotels and guest houses because trains could not reach them in the snow.


Of course, all this was happening just after Speaker Pelosi claimed to have seen “firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality" in Greenland.

I guess she had her eyes closed to all the snow falling around her.

Would one call this ignorance, blindness, or some unfortunate mixture thereof?

Regardless of the answer, right-thinking people all over the world are hoping that snow falls wherever the Speaker travels on this trip.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of
http://newsbusters.org/node/13085

[PostmodernProphet]

Global Warming 'Biggest Scam of Modern Times'

Red....stop a minute.....there are two issues here.....as you can see from the text of your article, the scam is that global warming is man-made.....there is no scam in global warming, itself.....that is a natural phenomena.....and like hurricanes and volcanos, it's a natural phenomena that has an impact on the people that live on this planet....

certainly you have to agree with that.......

[red states rule]

Red....stop a minute.....there are two issues here.....as you can see from the text of your article, the scam is that global warming is man-made.....there is no scam in global warming, itself.....that is a natural phenomena.....and like hurricanes and volcanos, it's a natural phenomena that has an impact on the people that live on this planet....

certainly you have to agree with that.......

I am sure San Fran Nan was making that point as the snow was falling

[PostmodernProphet]

you worry me, Red....it's like you have difficulty even thinking unless you can find a liberal's hate to tell you what to love.....

[red states rule]

you worry me, Red....it's like you have difficulty even thinking unless you can find a liberal's hate to tell you what to love.....

or facts and truth. They both cause libs to meltdown

[5stringJeff]

sigh.....I was hoping you would be brighter than that, Red....unless you live in the southern third of Bangladesh, it isn't likely you will die from global warming....and even then only if you don't join the other 80% of it's population thats going to be packing up and heading north.....

here in the US we have to figure out what to do with the millions of folks who live in Miami and the south third of Louisiana, cuz unless they grow gills, sometime in the next 50-1000 years, they are going to be underwater.....

Tell them to move.

[red states rule]

you worry me, Red....it's like you have difficulty even thinking unless you can find a liberal's hate to tell you what to love.....

BTW - if you want to see real hate - look no futher then the Dem party

[manu1959]

I happened to catch a few minutes of the Rush Limbaugh radio show today, while running an errand in my car. It underscored for me why the human race is headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions.

In his usual breezily self-confident manner, El Rushbo was citing a few instances of unusually cool temperatures as "evidence" that global warming is the bunk. (El Rushbo conveniently overlooks the fact that global warming has nothing to do with an occasional cool spell here and there; it's a gradual, inexorable, global process.)

But of course, facts have little to do with Rush Limbaugh's appeal. His conservative audience tunes in to have their prejudices and preferences validated and confirmed. ("If you hear it on the radio, it must be right. Right?")

El Rushbo then went on to declare that global warming was a liberal conspiracy to make you, the dittohead listener, give up your personal freedoms and surrender to ever-greater government control. (He actually said it was a liberal plot.)

And what personal freedoms are these liberals trying to take away from you?

The freedom to drive a gas-guzzling 8-cylinder car.
The freedom to run your air conditioner as much as you like.
The freedom to pollute the air and water in the name of jobs and the economy.
The freedom to produce garbage in ever-increasing amounts. (Recycle? Up yours!)
The freedom to continue to live a wasteful, luxurious lifestyle without any consideration of its effect on the environment.
The freedom to have as many kids as you want.

And when you consider that it's not just American conservatives who are giving the middle finger to any attempt to get them to behave in an ecologically responsible manner. There are about a billion Chinese who are dying to live the same wasteful, conservative Republican lifestyle. And there are probably another billion people in Asia who want it, too, and who would totally agree with Limbaugh's dittoheads that "the earth can take care of itself."

This is the world your kids and grandkids will inherit...a world where much of the earth that is now in "temperate" regions will be uninhabitable....a world where rising oceans have covered places like New York City, with economic consequences in the $trillions....a world where millions die of starvation and disease and the ones who survive will fight nasty wars over the dwindling supply of food and water.

We're fucked. But if that's too much for you to handle, tune in to Rush. He'll tell you it's all a lot of hooey and the United States is the greatest nation that ever existed and the future is rosy.

the 6 point system to eliminate global warming in america....

1. The freedom to drive a gas-guzzling 8-cylinder car.
2. The freedom to run your air conditioner as much as you like.
3. The freedom to pollute the air and water in the name of jobs and the economy.
4. The freedom to produce garbage in ever-increasing amounts. (Recycle? Up yours!)
5. The freedom to continue to live a wasteful, luxurious lifestyle without any consideration of its effect on the environment.
6. The freedom to have as many kids as you want.

just need to enforce this in every country in the world......

first.... off to venezula to criticize chavez.....that should go well...

[red states rule]

Michael Crichton Praises 'Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming'
By Noel Sheppard | August 11, 2007 - 16:52 ET

Best-selling science fiction author Michael Crichton has penned a glowing review of Bjorn Lomborg's soon to be released book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."

For those unfamiliar, Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute. Although he believes in anthropogenic global warming, his controversial view is that there are far more serious problems facing the planet that governments should spend time and money solving.

As a result, his "Skeptical Environmentalist" series of books continually evoke great debate internationally.

With that in mind, the following are snippets of Crichton's review of Lomborg's most recent installment (emphasis added, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed and most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, Lomborg views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, and determines how best, and in what order, we should address them.

[...]

Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.

Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change--despite his critics, he's no denier--but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal."

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.

It is plain to see why Lomborg is such a controversial figure, as he is not afraid to call a spade a spade regardless of who might find such straight talk inconvenient.

Speaking of which, Lomborg is the person soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore chickened out of an interview with in January (emphasis added):

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter.

As such, Lomborg is on a growing list of people that have challenged Gore to debate his junk science.

Of course, the Global Warmingist-in-Chief doesn't accept such challenges.

Why should he?
Or hadn't you heard that the debate is over?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/11/michael-crichton-praises-new-skeptical-environmentalists-guide-global

[glockmail]

I said a "plan" not a "recipe for disaster" :slap: :laugh2: Please explain why my plan is a recipie for disaster instead of the safe alternative that it is.

[red states rule]

Please explain why my plan is a recipie for disaster instead of the safe alternative that it is.

Because Al Gore said so?

[glockmail]

Because Al Gore said so? A Liberal in mindless lock-step with the High Priest? Whouda thunk? :coffee:

[red states rule]

A Liberal in mindless lock-step with the High Priest? Whouda thunk? :coffee:

shocking, isn't it?

[GW in Ohio]

Actually, I hope all the people who say global warming is a myth or a liberal plot are right.

But regardless of whether global warming is a reality, we should still take the same steps to reduce pollution.

Our air no longer nourishes life; in many cases, polluted air sickens people and is a hazard to health. We should make clean air a national priority.

And there are too many people living on the earth today. The food and water and environmental resources of the earth have been strained to the breaking point. We should initiate zero population growth programs.

Both of the above require the cooperation of other nations (e.g., China) to be successful.

Enlisting the cooperation of the Chinese government in improving the air quality and the quality of life for all residents of the earth is a major challenge for the next president.

[red states rule]

Actually, I hope all the people who say global warming is a myth or a liberal plot are right.

But regardless of whether global warming is a reality, we should still take the same steps to reduce pollution.

Our air no longer nourishes life; in many cases, polluted air sickens people and is a hazard to health. We should make clean air a national priority.

And there are too many people living on the earth today. The food and water and environmental resources of the earth have been strained to the breaking point. We should initiate zero population growth programs.

Both of the above require the cooperation of other nations (e.g., China) to be successful.

Enlisting the cooperation of the Chinese government in improving the air quality and the quality of life for all residents of the earth is a major challenge for the next president.

Well, maybe it would help your side if just ONE of the doom and gloom perdictions would actually happen

[avatar4321]

Actually, I hope all the people who say global warming is a myth or a liberal plot are right.

But regardless of whether global warming is a reality, we should still take the same steps to reduce pollution.

Our air no longer nourishes life; in many cases, polluted air sickens people and is a hazard to health. We should make clean air a national priority.

And there are too many people living on the earth today. The food and water and environmental resources of the earth have been strained to the breaking point. We should initiate zero population growth programs.

Both of the above require the cooperation of other nations (e.g., China) to be successful.

Enlisting the cooperation of the Chinese government in improving the air quality and the quality of life for all residents of the earth is a major challenge for the next president.

yeah we should just start killing people off. like you said too many people on the earth. and people breath out CO2 so naturally the best way to solve the problems of the world is to kill them off.

And you wonder why no one believes this garbage? its because anyone who is thinking realizes that the only logical conclusion to the problem is mass genocide.

[GW in Ohio]

Well, maybe it would help your side if just ONE of the doom and gloom perdictions would actually happen

It wouldn't help anybody if the preducted global warming scenarios play out.

Why do you think it would help the Democrats?

[red states rule]

It wouldn't help anybody if the preducted global warming scenarios play out.

Why do you think it would help the Democrats?

I have heard BS how people in NY would have to wear gas masks do to the smell of the dead fish in the rivers - that was to be by 1990 (I believe that was the date)

So far not onel of the doom and gloom perdictions have come true

When I was in HS, a lib SS teacher held up the Newsweek screaming about global COOLING and how man was destroying the Earth

[GW in Ohio]

I have heard BS how people in NY would have to wear gas masks do to the smell of the dead fish in the rivers - that was to be by 1990 (I believe that was the date)

So far not onel of the doom and gloom perdictions have come true

When I was in HS, a lib SS teacher held up the Newsweek screaming about global COOLING and how man was destroying the Earth

Here's a doom and gloom prediction that has come true.

Look out your window at the downtown area of a city on a summer day.

Chances are, you can't see downtown, because of the smog.

Ever feel your eyes and nose burning from pollution in the summertime?

Does your area post occasional air quality alerts, where people are advised to limit outdoor activities?

Did you see the recent article detailing how air pollution from China is contaminating the air in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and traveling all the way to California?

[red states rule]

Here's a doom and gloom prediction that has come true.

Look out your window at the downtown area of a city on a summer day.

Chances are, you can't see downtown, because of the smog.

Ever feel your eyes and nose burning from pollution in the summertime?

Does your area post occasional air quality alerts, where people are advised to limit outdoor activities?

Did you see the recent article detailing how air pollution from China is contaminating the air in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and traveling all the way to California?

Is that all you have?

Smog has been an issue for over 50 years

The enviro wackos have been screaming how the sky is falling so much - they are being ignored by most people

Excuse me while I crank up my A/C a little more

[glockmail]

.....

Did you see the recent article detailing how air pollution from China is contaminating the air in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and traveling all the way to California? Those damn chinks. We need to kick some yellow ass.

[red states rule]

Those damn chinks. We need to kick some yellow ass.

Thanks to them, we got an extra four years of Bill Clinton

[Sitarro]

Actually, I hope all the people who say global warming is a myth or a liberal plot are right.

But regardless of whether global warming is a reality, we should still take the same steps to reduce pollution.

Our air no longer nourishes life; in many cases, polluted air sickens people and is a hazard to health. We should make clean air a national priority.

And there are too many people living on the earth today. The food and water and environmental resources of the earth have been strained to the breaking point. We should initiate zero population growth programs.

Both of the above require the cooperation of other nations (e.g., China) to be successful.

Enlisting the cooperation of the Chinese government in improving the air quality and the quality of life for all residents of the earth is a major challenge for the next president.

Hey....good luck with that.....:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[red states rule]

Hey....good luck with that.....:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Hey, if Hillary gets as much Chi Com money as Bill did, they will never be held accountable

Besides, the enviro wackos love to bash the US more then any other country

[glockmail]

Hey, if Hillary gets as much Chi Com money as Bill did, they will never be held accountable

Besides, the enviro wackos love to bash the US more then any other country As the enviro-nuts don't actively support nuclear power, or wind power off Nantucket, it is obvious that their agenda is not a clean environment.

[red states rule]

As the enviro-nuts don't actively support nuclear power, or wind power off Nantucket, it is obvious that their agenda is not a clean environment.

It is nothing more then a war on capitalism, and the guilt they have over the US being the best country on God's Earth

Shocking Headline: ‘Summer Chill Is One For The Ages’
By Noel Sheppard | August 16, 2007 - 11:30 ET

Imagine for a moment that the capital of the most-populated state in the union was experiencing its warmest days on record. Do you think this would be headline, front page, lead story news?

Well, the capital of California, Sacramento, last week posted the lowest recorded highs for the days August 5 and August 6 since they began keeping records in 1877.

Didn't hear about this? Of course you didn't, because a media fixated on global warming don't care about cold temperatures anywhere unless they can somehow be blamed on - wait for it! - global warming.

For those interested, the Sacramento Bee reported last Tuesday to the high pitch of crickets chirping in newsrooms across the fruited plain (emphasis added):

Don't tell Al Gore, but global warming is taking a holiday in Sacramento this week. The maximum temperatures Sunday and Monday set records each day -- as the coolest "highs" for the dates since record-keeping began in 1877.

Forecasters credit a deep marine layer and a potent low-pressure trough with funneling the cool air this way. It's as if Mother Nature cut herself a wedge of Santa Barbara weather and plopped it down on Sacramento's plate.

We're talking, for once, about the all-time lowest maximums, instead of the all-time highest. Monday's downtown high was just 74 degrees, 3 degrees cooler than the previous record of 77 degrees set in 1906, according to the National Weather Service. Sunday's downtown high of 76 frosted the previous low maximum of 78, set in 1962.

"These were the coldest highs for Aug. 5 and Aug. 6 that we've ever recorded," said meteorologist Cynthia Palmer of the National Weather Service office in Sacramento.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/16/shocking-headline-summer-chill-one-ages

[GW in Ohio]

It is nothing more then a war on capitalism, and the guilt they have over the US being the best country on God's Earth

Shocking Headline: ‘Summer Chill Is One For The Ages’
By Noel Sheppard | August 16, 2007 - 11:30 ET

Imagine for a moment that the capital of the most-populated state in the union was experiencing its warmest days on record. Do you think this would be headline, front page, lead story news?

Well, the capital of California, Sacramento, last week posted the lowest recorded highs for the days August 5 and August 6 since they began keeping records in 1877.

Didn't hear about this? Of course you didn't, because a media fixated on global warming don't care about cold temperatures anywhere unless they can somehow be blamed on - wait for it! - global warming.

For those interested, the Sacramento Bee reported last Tuesday to the high pitch of crickets chirping in newsrooms across the fruited plain (emphasis added):

Don't tell Al Gore, but global warming is taking a holiday in Sacramento this week. The maximum temperatures Sunday and Monday set records each day -- as the coolest "highs" for the dates since record-keeping began in 1877.

Forecasters credit a deep marine layer and a potent low-pressure trough with funneling the cool air this way. It's as if Mother Nature cut herself a wedge of Santa Barbara weather and plopped it down on Sacramento's plate.

We're talking, for once, about the all-time lowest maximums, instead of the all-time highest. Monday's downtown high was just 74 degrees, 3 degrees cooler than the previous record of 77 degrees set in 1906, according to the National Weather Service. Sunday's downtown high of 76 frosted the previous low maximum of 78, set in 1962.

"These were the coldest highs for Aug. 5 and Aug. 6 that we've ever recorded," said meteorologist Cynthia Palmer of the National Weather Service office in Sacramento.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/16/shocking-headline-summer-chill-one-ages


Nothing would make me happier than to learn the global warming predictions are incorrect.

However, the same steps that we would take to combat global warming (reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce world population growth) are the exact same steps we should be taking to deal with global environmental degradation, so we should take them.

When air pollution from China is routinely found in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and starts showing up in California, you start to realize we are degrading the environment of the entire planet and we'd better start working collaboratevely with other nations to save the environment we all depend on.

And by the way, I fully support nuclear power.

Wind power? Hell, yes.

[red states rule]

Nothing would make me happier than to learn the global warming predictions are incorrect.

However, the same steps that we would take to combat global warming (reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce world population growth) are the exact same steps we should be taking to deal with global environmental degradation, so we should take them.

When air pollution from China is routinely found in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and starts showing up in California, you start to realize we are degrading the environment of the entire planet and we'd better start working collaboratevely with other nations to save the environment we all depend on.

And by the way, I fully support nuclear power.

Wind power? Hell, yes.

then you have your wish

none of the doom and gloom perdictions have or will come true

[GW in Ohio]

then you have your wish

none of the doom and gloom perdictions have or will come true

Must be nice to be so sure about things.

Do you have lunch with God on a regular basis?

[red states rule]

Must be nice to be so sure about things.

Do you have lunch with God on a regular basis?

Only the long track history of the kook left being wrong

Some things in life never change - and enviro wackos being wrong is one of them