And now for something REALLY funny
Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind.
Oh those silly Japanese…
Hyperbole as policy
Can you say “desperate’?
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) — President Obama joined other world leaders Tuesday in calling for immediate and substantive steps to combat climate change, saying failure to act now would bring “irreversible catastrophe.”
As the world gets cooler the rhetoric gets more desperate.
A Meteorologist’s Skeptical Take on Global Warming
Matt Rogers is a meteorologist for the Washington Post, an unusual place to find a sceptic of “Global Warming”. Yet, nonetheless, there he is giving ten reasons he thinks it’s wise to question the “concensus” on GW.
But first he starts by setting the stage with how difficult the topic is:
…I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as “the science is settled”, “the debate is over”, or even the “the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be…” I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts.
With respect for the topic and the state of the science he lists his top ten reasons, David Letterman style, for questioning the orthodox view:
(10) Hurricanes: …Since the 1990s, this activity has been decreasing, which goes against what we were told to expect on a warming planet.
(9) Ice Caps: In 2007, the Northern Hemisphere reached a record low in ice coverage and the Northwest Passage was opened. …What you were not told was that the data that triggered this record is only available back to the late 1970s.
(8) El Niño: …we are now about to complete an entire decade without a strong El Niño event (three occurred in the 1980s-1990s). So the more recent 2007 IPCC report backtracked from Hansen’s prediction, noting that there were too many uncertainties to understand how El Niño will behave with climate change.
(7) Climate Models: To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s…
(6) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): …Over the summer, CO2 reached almost .04% of our total atmosphere as reported here. Because CO2 is but a sliver of our atmosphere, it is known as a “trace gas.” We all agree that it is increasing, but is there a chance that our estimate of its influence on the Greenhouse Effect is overblown given its small atmospheric ratio?
(5) Global Temperatures: …Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then.
(4) Solar Issue: …The second half of the twentieth century (when we saw lots of warming) was during a major solar maximum period- which is now ending. Total solar irradiance has been steady or sinking similar to our global temperatures over much of this past decade…
(3) But what about…? …”But what about all this crazy weather we’ve been having lately?” …Very few statistics are available that correctly show an increase in these “crazy” events.
(2) Silencing Dissent: …several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the “settled science” due to the moral imperative of “saving the planet”. As with a religious debate, I’m told that my disagreement means I do not “care enough” and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me.
(1) Pullback: Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. I believe that when our science or economic experts tend to be incorrect, it usually involves predictions that have underperformed expectations (Y2K, SARS, oil supply, etc). Can we think of any other expert-given, consensus-based, long-term predictions that have verified correctly? Not one comes to mind.
All are good but I like No. 1 the best. Because that, my friends, describes hubris.
Kids cause GW (2)
The attack on kids as culprits in “global warming” goes on.
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
…The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary method of emission reduction…
Preventing kids should be the “PRIMARY method of emission reduction”! Not having kids is five times more effective than green technologies!
I thought we needed “cap and trade” to save the planet. What happened to reusable grocery bags? What about hybrid cars and riding your bike to work? Recycling? Is Algore’s carbon offset venture just a feel good scam? It would appear so.
Turns out the only thing we need to do is remove humans, at least in great numbers, from the Earth. Who needed them anyway? (You might want to ask the Europeans what happens to societies with declining populations.)
The Kyoto Protocal called for a 5% reduction in emissions over a five year period. The U.S. Senate unaninously refused to approve it and President Clinton refused to sign it because of it’s severe effect on the U.S. economy. But now we’re being told that that was chicken feed. Now it’s so bad that nearly nothing we can do short of living a caveman-like existence will work:
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 percent reduction in emmissions are likely to prove insufficient.
Because the true believers have the ears of our politicians, we can expect them to react to such dire predictions. How long before suggested contraception use becomes mandatory sterilization in pursuit of the gospel of “Climate Change”? Don’t bet that it’s too far off.
If you plan to have children do it now before you’re told you can’t.
Don’t you just hope they keep talking?
Detroit, Mich. – Michigan just experienced its coldest July on record; global temperatures haven’t risen in more than a decade; Great Lakes water levels have resumed their 30-year cyclical rise (contrary to a decade of media scare stories that they were drying up due to global warming), and polls show that climate change doesn’t even make a list of Michigan voters’ top-ten concerns.
Yet in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) – recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee – made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.
“Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry – at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”
And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I’m boating.
Kids cause global warming!
Here’s a neat way for the zero population kooks to support their cause. Blame kids for global warming. (Emphasis added)
For people who are looking for ways to reduce their “carbon footprint,” here’s one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.
A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.
Those of you planning to have children are just being selfish when it comes to saving the planet. You really should think of the carbon consequences before you reproduce. Do you really need that “extra” child? Don’t forget that the “extra” children you make today could commit the mortal environmental sin of having “extra” children themselves. This time we really do need to “think of the children”.
Reproductive choices haven’t gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.
“Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth,” Murtaugh said. “Future growth amplifies the consequences of people’s reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance.”
BTW, I’m not sure what constitues an “extra” child in the United States. I know in China it’s more than one. ( I wonder if we can get carbon credits for every abortion.)
Here’s another concern: my mother had three boys. I guess two of us have to go. If you have siblings you may want to start thinking which of you are “extra”. That could become important down the road.
Not to worry though, they really aren’t suggesting a law or anything like that.
The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.
Thank goodness! But, you know that will come next. These people really will stop at nothing.
Take that ALGORE!
ALGORE’s hometown of Nashville isn’t cooperating with the Global Warming agenda:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Cool weather has broken a previous low temperature for July 21 in Nashville that was set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.
When the temperature at the National Weather Service station dipped to 58 degrees at 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it wiped out the previous record low for the date of 60 degrees, which was set in 1877.
Was this just a freak anomaly? Apparently not.
NWS forecaster Bobby Boyd noted it was the third consecutive morning when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low temperature record.
And here in Chicago we’re still waiting for summer to really begin.
Now, of course, we know that local weather is not global climate. We also know it’s hot in the South and West. So its only having a fun to point out little factoids like this.
But, that being said, it’s beginning to look like 2009 will be another year of a decline in global temperatures. According to satellite measurements, global temperatures were at ”normal” levels through June of this year with a “Global Temperature Anomaly” of 0.00 degrees C.
I’ll look for that info to be reported broadly in the MSM. 
Now its fish
Another problem caused by GW.
Fish have lost half their average body mass and smaller species are making up a larger proportion of European fish stocks as a result of global warming, a study published Monday has found.
“It’s huge,” said study author Martin Daufresne of the Cemagref Public Agricultural and Environmental Research Institute in Lyon, France.
Oh those silly French. Always missing the irony.
The Gore Lied computer model
Here’s a fun one from the GORE LIED blog. A computer model they developed predicts the demise of belief in global warming.
Rasmussen Reports has reported that the public’s belief in man-made global warming has decreased from 47% to 34% in just one year.
The GORE LIED computer model below shows that at the current rate of loss of belief in man-made global warming that such belief will be virtually non-existent by 2020 (with the exception of Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Joe Romm, and a few other assorted dead-enders).
[...]
Finally!!! The people are wising up to the GW scam! And we know it must be true because it IS projected by a computer model, after all!
Thanks to Bro John for the tip.
Stay slim to save the planet
Hard to believe but true! At least according to the nut-jobs at something called the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
“When it comes to food consumption, moving about in a heavy body is like driving around in a gas guzzler,” and food production is a major source of greenhouse gases, researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
“We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend toward fatness, and recognize it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change,” the British scientists said.
So there you have it you fattys out there. You, personally, are killing the planet! How dare you? I think, at the very least, you need to pay a carbon tax. In the alternative you can enter into a cap and trade arrangement with an ultra-skinny supermodel until you come back into body weight compliance.
