02.08.08
Global Warming Update : It’s Time To Suffer
I’ve been off the global warming thing as of late due to my smoking ban project, but don’t worry, I still keep an eye on it and when I see something absolutely beyond the pale, I will bring it up.
This, my friends, is why the left scares me so much. This is why McCain, Clinton, Obama, Huck and all of the other global warming wingnuts scare the crap out of me. This is why we need to rethink this two-party system and keep these people the hell away from the White House…
From CATO:
Slow down our economy? SLOW IT DOWN?!! Is he insane? He must be mentally ill to have said that. It’s the only explanation that I will accept. To willingly and knowingly inflict economic harm on our country and the people in the name of global warming is absolutely insane and immoral.
Will somebody please explain to me how it can be that our well being means so little to these people?
Remember this, and remember it well… There is nothing that makes “suffering for the greater good” acceptable or ethical when the greater good is a lie.
Conservatives First
Gary said,
February 8, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Slow down the economy = higher foreclosure rates, slower business, lower GDP, less incentives for business to set up base here, all cumulating in much lower tax revenues.
Combine a decrease in tax revenues with more promised spending programs, devalued dollar, rising medical costs, debts in the stratosphere, medicare, medicaid and social security going under and all the other financial drains.
Then we have a 3rd world country and the USA is no longer a super or any kind of a power. Hyper inflation and poverty would be king. Then the Baby Boomers retire. Wheee, thanks Billy for giving another reason to keep Bilary out of office.
My blog is on education. Bilary need to restart at basic number comparison in 1st grade again.
micky2 said,
February 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I’m supporting McCain only because he’s the lesser of three evils. I would rather have a Con in the white house that appeals slightly to the left than Hillary or Obama.
We need to stand behind what looks like is going to be the Rep.nominee instaed of worrying about parties as in the suggestion by Malkin, Coulter and Rush that we let the Dems win so we can get a strict con in office in 2012. The nexy four years will be a disaster.
Iraq will of been for nothing and a host of other shit will come into play that will make a lot of work for the 2012 winner.
Bill is showing his age by running off that totally ridculous statement. When I heard him say that I got on my GA_DONG face and by jaw hit the floor. And if hillary is going to have that kind of looney influence in her corner while in the white house, alcholism, addiction and depression will be on the rise. And her socialistic universal medical program will get tapped into oblivion.
wickle said,
February 8, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Sigh … I can’t believe that I have to defend Bill Clinton. But honesty has its demands.
Like so many speeches that are used to embarrass people, it was longer than once sentence, but that’s all that most critics know.
He actually said:
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.”
Bill Clinton is wrong on global warming and the economy, but in this case he didn’t actually say that we should slow down the economy. He said that if we did, our competitors would leap on the advantage.
There is something to be said for context.
David Brown said,
February 8, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore’s mythical “consensus.” Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
——————————————————————————–
Related Topics: Global Warming
——————————————————————————–
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a “stethoscope for the sun.” But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun’s emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth’s climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”
Rather, he says, “I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”
Patterson, sharing Tapping’s concern, says: “Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.”
“Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” Patterson says. “If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than ‘global warming’ would have had.”
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming “community” — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by “dramatic changes” in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
“The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100,” according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that “try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.”
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, “there would not be much effect on temperatures.”
But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.
micky2 said,
February 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm
O.K Wickle.
In proper context is was actually worse.
The global warming thing is already a joke, using our grandkids as a sympathy ploy is sleazy.
And no theres no “maybe ” about it.
No one is going to slow down their economy for anything. No shit Sherlock. Seeing that the question or thought even crossed his mind is grounds for question
mpinkeyes said,
February 9, 2008 at 6:34 am
I can’t believ the point some of these people have reached. It is always up to us to “sacrifice” to save the world. Now on top of “sacrifice”, which usually means more taxes, we have to do whatever possible even if it slows our economy and people lose jobs? Is that the point we have reached?
Peggy said,
February 10, 2008 at 1:20 pm
What about all of the economic opportunities in revamping the system we have now? Creating new ways of more energy efficient transportation, and machinery for industries would surely create job opportunities and growth. Our planet’s future needs to be protected, as well as our economic status. Pollution and it’s affects on our environment is also a threat…it isn’t all a hoax. Lets make lemonade out of this mess!
Ryan said,
February 11, 2008 at 7:22 am
Peggy, I appreciate your optimism in this, but economically speaking it’s a pipe dream. We’re driving people out of jobs faster than new ones are created - not to mention the fact that the high technology jobs that are theoretically going to be created won’t be dipping into the pool of new jobless workers because the people who have the skills for those jobs will still be employed.
Are we going to have to pay even more into the system to make sure that everybody who gets cut gets a full re-education so that they can hopefully qualify for the new jobs? No matter how you do the math on this, we end up in the negative.
I agree that pollution is a threat - and it always has been. However, there are right ways to address it and wrong ways… And right now we are doing everything wrong. We also need to define pollution and approach this thing from an intelligent perspective; because tagging carbon as “pollution” is asinine and is going to result in severe economic and social repercussions thanks to our overzealousness in wanting to appear “progressive.”
micky2 said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:36 am
Hillary has been banging the “green jobs” drum for a while now. The first time she mentioned it my first question was ” what about the old jobs”?
Is she actually going to try and create a whole sector that IMO is not really viable to the economy or existing workers in the energy field
Ryan said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:32 am
Micky, the problem is that Hillary is as clueless as the rest of the greenies out there. They like to think everything is sunshine and roses, but the cold hard reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as “green jobs.” It’s a catch phrase that sounds really cool, but will never amount to anything. I work in the high technology engineering field and I can assure you that going green will not result in some sort of magical surge in green high tech jobs that will raise the standard of living for us all while we live in some sort of green utopia. It’s a pipe dream of the worst kind.
micky2 said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’m in totall agreement with you. Because like I said, this sector would have to be created as much as it is a bullshit stumping creation. The professional status quo as yourself probably laughed they’re asses off when they heard that.
I was simply trying to put myself in an objective light and ask what would seem like a reasonable response that I’ve not heard out of anyone yet.
“IF” she did succeed in doing so , what about all those who would stand to loose they’re jobs.
In my book ” green jobs ” means Mexican Gardeners
Radiant Times said,
February 15, 2008 at 6:40 am
I disagree that Huckabee is a global warming wingnut. He, like many of us who do not ascribe to the ‘global warming’ pseudo science, still believe that we should be good stewards of our resources and that it would be wise from a national security standpoint to wrest ourselves from the addiction to Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil. That would not be a bad thing at all!
Thanks for your comment on my blog. My husband and I think a third party will be in the making since the Republican Party has left it’s values and is trying to shove McCain (McTraitor to my husband) down our throats.
Alaskanspawn said,
February 28, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Good stewards, yes. Create a panic, no. Anyone see this article?
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Anyone notice the graph has many peaks and valleys? I just can’t understand why all the hysteria around the latest peak? Besides, Gore should be worried about global cooling now. I wonder what his next movie will be about?
Ryan said,
February 29, 2008 at 7:12 am
Spawn, I saw that report, but I also heard Jason Lewis talking about it the other day.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but I can tell you this much… These people don’t like to lose, and I already sense that they are working on a way to manipulate this thing to their own benefit. I think that is why we are starting to hear more about “climate change” than “global warming” right now, because you can’t argue “climate change” since yes, the climate does indeed change. They are just going to try to make change of any kind look bad.
Watch out! This is far from over.