It takes a certain level of idiot to think they can, with any certainty, alter Mother Nature. Of the many beefs I have with the global warming zealots is that man, with as short of time we've been here, and as little space we actually occupy, has had any affect on earth's climate.
Sure, we can screw things up on a small scale. Rivers, lakes, forests, even big cities with their air pollution, are all clearly influenced by our being here. But, globally? No. Nothing we do can compare to the destruction nature itself can yield. Be it an earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricanes, natural forest fires, tornadoes, tidal waves . . . nothing.
Unfortunately, ecotards exist. While I'm not surprised, I am greatly dismayed that Obama, and the rest of his merry men, actually think they can control the Earth's climate through climate engineering. Actually, I'm more than dismayed, I'm frikkin' scared. It's one thing to rack up debt and destroy any hope for future generations. It's another thing to destroy the planet.
First, we're not the only ones here. Think other countries might want a say in this?
Second, it took several volcanic eruptions over the course of a decade to lower the temperature of the Earth about half a degree for about three years. Think of the magnitude of that. Do you really think we're capable of pumping that amount of particulate and sustaining it?
Third, you don't think there would be negative consequences to this?!?!?! What happens when another volcano decides to blow? Sulfates would be the particle of choice. What happens when it falls back to Earth? We have lots of particles in the atmosphere now. Some reflect the Sun's energy helping cool the planet. Some trap heat helping to keep the planet warm. Think adding more particulate might actually increase warming?
Fact is, no one knows what the consequences would be. This is beyond looney. It's dangerous. It is about as radical and irresponsible as an idea can be. But, you know Obama . . .
"Well, ha ha ha, you know, we can't just sit back and, umm we have to take the lead and ha ha ha, look at the humor of those, ummm, errr, look at how we got here, ummm, a big umbrella, really, and that's funny, ha ha ha, err we'll deal with the consequences, ha ha ha boy, maybe I could get a season named after me, ha ha ha."
Speaking of which, take the time and read this post about the arctic ice cores.
So, satellite data doesn't support warming, ocean robots don't support warming, empirical data doesn't support warming, and now the ice cores support what we've known all along, that the Earth warms and cools all on its own.
A Brave New World, people. A brave new world.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Just admit it. You're a hypocrite!
I've been called a hypocrite. Right here on this blog! Problem for the accuser, though . . . I admitted it. It wasn't about anything that particularly important. Certainly nothing that gets to the core of one's character or beliefs. Still, I try not to be hypocritical. But, I think we all make exceptions.
Take the death penalty. Many a conservative are for capitol punishment. Even though they'll turn around and say they're pro life. That abortion is murder. Hypocritical? Yes! But, it's easy to defend. On the one hand you have someone who's only crime was to be conceived. The process of life has begun and someone is about to determine that otherwise. On the other hand you have someone who has decided for someone else that their life should end. Particularly in the case of premeditated murder, there is no greater sin, if you will, on another person.
I'm actually against the death penalty. In this case, I try to be consistent. I simply think it's wrong for a person to end the life of another. And, I'm not particularly religious.
Anyway. Long and, perhaps, goofy set up to the actual point.
Libs have a big problem with The Patriot Act and the many things associated with it. I've read on blogs and in comments the views of such libs that not only are many facets of The Patriot Act unconstitutional and illegal (something that's NEVER been proven), but that the tactics used by ProPat's (I just made that up) is nothing more than scare tactics and lies. That "for the safety of our country" is simply a cover to violate rights and laws.
Of course, they never say why. I mean, what does . . . did Bush gain from this? If it's true, what's the payoff? Plus, I'm confused. Is Bush the dumbest President ever . . . or the most clever?
Whatever. It's an issue that's hotly debated. Quite honestly, I can see the liberal's point with this. After all, there have been a number of rather scholarly and legal types that have offered up opinion. In this case, however, I choose to side with Bush. I understand the concerns of those on the left. But, I also think they're unfounded. And, we are talking about some pretty bad folks, after all. Folks who have taken a number of shots at us and our allies. Successfully, I might add.
So it is with . . . global warming. Only now, the roles are reversed. Most on the alarmist side of the issue are liberals, on the denier side, conservatives. We've been told that global warming is largely man's fault. And that if we don't do something about it soon . . . well . . . I'm not sure what's going to happen. No one seems to agree on that. But, it's bad. Very bad. Ice caps will melt, the oceans will rise and gobble up a bunch of cities, weather events will worsen, plague will spread, all kinds of plants and animals will become extinct . . . all because of a rise in temperature of a half a degree in the next 100 years. Or, was that 6 degrees. I guess it depends on which expert you read.
We're also told that there's a huge consensus of scientists on this. They're ALL in agreement. Well, only the ones who agree to be in agreement, anyway. Like the issues with the Patriot Act, there are those who think otherwise. Smartly types, too. In fact, there are hundreds of experts from various scientific disciplines that refute the notion of man made global warming. Some how, though, they don't count. "Look for the money trail, look for the money trail, look for the money trail . . . ". Like an irritating parrot that you just want to throw the towel over, you hear this.
More than that, you hear, "do you want to risk being wrong?"
Hmm. Where have I heard something like that before . . . ?
Take the death penalty. Many a conservative are for capitol punishment. Even though they'll turn around and say they're pro life. That abortion is murder. Hypocritical? Yes! But, it's easy to defend. On the one hand you have someone who's only crime was to be conceived. The process of life has begun and someone is about to determine that otherwise. On the other hand you have someone who has decided for someone else that their life should end. Particularly in the case of premeditated murder, there is no greater sin, if you will, on another person.
I'm actually against the death penalty. In this case, I try to be consistent. I simply think it's wrong for a person to end the life of another. And, I'm not particularly religious.
Anyway. Long and, perhaps, goofy set up to the actual point.
Libs have a big problem with The Patriot Act and the many things associated with it. I've read on blogs and in comments the views of such libs that not only are many facets of The Patriot Act unconstitutional and illegal (something that's NEVER been proven), but that the tactics used by ProPat's (I just made that up) is nothing more than scare tactics and lies. That "for the safety of our country" is simply a cover to violate rights and laws.
Of course, they never say why. I mean, what does . . . did Bush gain from this? If it's true, what's the payoff? Plus, I'm confused. Is Bush the dumbest President ever . . . or the most clever?
Whatever. It's an issue that's hotly debated. Quite honestly, I can see the liberal's point with this. After all, there have been a number of rather scholarly and legal types that have offered up opinion. In this case, however, I choose to side with Bush. I understand the concerns of those on the left. But, I also think they're unfounded. And, we are talking about some pretty bad folks, after all. Folks who have taken a number of shots at us and our allies. Successfully, I might add.
So it is with . . . global warming. Only now, the roles are reversed. Most on the alarmist side of the issue are liberals, on the denier side, conservatives. We've been told that global warming is largely man's fault. And that if we don't do something about it soon . . . well . . . I'm not sure what's going to happen. No one seems to agree on that. But, it's bad. Very bad. Ice caps will melt, the oceans will rise and gobble up a bunch of cities, weather events will worsen, plague will spread, all kinds of plants and animals will become extinct . . . all because of a rise in temperature of a half a degree in the next 100 years. Or, was that 6 degrees. I guess it depends on which expert you read.
We're also told that there's a huge consensus of scientists on this. They're ALL in agreement. Well, only the ones who agree to be in agreement, anyway. Like the issues with the Patriot Act, there are those who think otherwise. Smartly types, too. In fact, there are hundreds of experts from various scientific disciplines that refute the notion of man made global warming. Some how, though, they don't count. "Look for the money trail, look for the money trail, look for the money trail . . . ". Like an irritating parrot that you just want to throw the towel over, you hear this.
More than that, you hear, "do you want to risk being wrong?"
Hmm. Where have I heard something like that before . . . ?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Global Foolishness - Nails in the Coffin
OK. What we know is that satellite measurements have not supported the alarmists position on seasons (climate change). We know that ocean robots have revealed no warming. We know there's been no rise in ocean level. We know the ice cap is gaining ice. And, we know we've been in a ten year cooling trend. We know ALL of this.
Now, along comes this article:
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
We've heard about dissent since the IPCC and algore revealed to the world about the doom we're in. Many shrugged off the dissent as tools for the oil industry. "Follow the money", they would say. But, even in complete absence of any such affiliation deniers have been shrugged off. "There's consensus" we would hear.
Well, some of those in the article are former IPCC members who have . . . come to their senses, in short. Most others are very much experts in the field of climate study. It will be difficult, short of being an idiot, to shrug these people off.
It will be interesting to read their report.
Now, along comes this article:
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
We've heard about dissent since the IPCC and algore revealed to the world about the doom we're in. Many shrugged off the dissent as tools for the oil industry. "Follow the money", they would say. But, even in complete absence of any such affiliation deniers have been shrugged off. "There's consensus" we would hear.
Well, some of those in the article are former IPCC members who have . . . come to their senses, in short. Most others are very much experts in the field of climate study. It will be difficult, short of being an idiot, to shrug these people off.
It will be interesting to read their report.
Friday, December 05, 2008
2008 Coolest Year of Decade
This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."
Hmmm. Like what? 50 years? Maybe 100? Let's see . . . the Earth is, what . . . 4 billion years old? Some say less. But, a long time. Nothing a 100 year span could EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEING A SAMPLE TREND! In fact, I think most with a brain would consider a 50 year span to be of NO SIGNIFICANCE. NONE.
Geez.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Global Foolishness
For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."
That's from up above. Now, let's back up a few months and remember this:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
The whole upper article here.
Actually, I find this rather distressing as I like 70 degree October weather.
Oh well. Can we be done with this, yet?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Perfect Timing
NICOSIA (Reuters) - A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.
Atmospheric scientist Paul J Crutzen, who has in the past floated the possibility of blitzing the stratosphere with sulfur particles to cool the earth, said clouds gathering over the world economy could ease the earth's environmental burden.
Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon dioxide emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer.
"It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage," Crutzen told Reuters in an interview.
"We could have a much slower increase of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere ... people will start saving (on energy use) ... but things may get worse if there is less money available for research and that would be serious."
In light of the growing backlash to the alarmists, along comes the perfect out for their ridiculous claims and the fact that the world's climate isn't cooperating with them
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Quick hits
Heart wants the Republicans to stop using Barracuda. The original songwriter feels otherwise. The convention paid the ASCAP fees and the writer gets a royality every time the song is played. The writer is going to donate the profits to the Democratic party. As such, the Republicans are supporting the Democrats!
For the second time, experts have lowered their predictions as to the sea rise due to global warming. What happened? Did Mike Moore get out?
Favre scored a touchdown on a 4th and 13 leading the Jets to a victory over the Dolphins. Shit.
No Oops I Did It Again for Brtiney. The VMA's open with a Britney sketch . . . no song. I guess drunk fat and stupid IS no way to go through life.
For the second time, experts have lowered their predictions as to the sea rise due to global warming. What happened? Did Mike Moore get out?
Favre scored a touchdown on a 4th and 13 leading the Jets to a victory over the Dolphins. Shit.
No Oops I Did It Again for Brtiney. The VMA's open with a Britney sketch . . . no song. I guess drunk fat and stupid IS no way to go through life.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Global foolishness
From the Snow and Ice Data Center:
Fred has been keeping us informed from time to time over at Real Debate. Now, it's looking less and less likely that the cap will melt . . . as the envirocrats predicted it would this summer.
From the SIDC:
Summer isn't over. But, much like the hurricane "scare" of a few years ago, this melting prediction will likely be yet another climate issue they got wrong.
Sea ice extent continues to decline, but we have not yet seen last July’s period of accelerated decline. Part of the explanation is that temperatures were cooler in the last two weeks of July, especially north of Alaska.
Because we are past the summer solstice, the amount of potential solar energy reaching the surface is waning. The rate of decline should soon start to slow, reducing the likelihood of breaking last year's record sea ice minimum.
Fred has been keeping us informed from time to time over at Real Debate. Now, it's looking less and less likely that the cap will melt . . . as the envirocrats predicted it would this summer.
From the SIDC:
Summer isn't over. But, much like the hurricane "scare" of a few years ago, this melting prediction will likely be yet another climate issue they got wrong.
Friday, August 01, 2008
More Global Foolishness
From JSonline:
1915? That's an 85 year span!
Huh.
It has, at times, been warm, muggy and sweaty this summer.
But it hasn't yet been 90 degrees.
The official temperature in Milwaukee hit 88 degrees four times this month - July 15, 16, 17 and on Wednesday. But the temperature at Mitchell International Airport hasn't gotten any closer to that sweltering mark, according to the National Weather Service in Sullivan. In Madison, the temperature reached 88 degrees in July 16, but no 90.
There are still plenty of chances for the temperature to hit 90 degrees this summer, with the next real chance coming Sunday or Monday. But the last summer Milwaukee didn't reach 90 degrees was in 2000. Before that, 1915.
In Madison, the temperature didn't reach 90 degrees in 2004, but before that, the last summer without such sweltering heat was 1924.
Meteorologists at the weather service say several factors could be keeping the temperature down, but part of it may be the ground's fault. So much rain fell in June that the soil is saturated, the forecasters say. When the temperature hits the 80s, that moisture evaporates relatively quickly and keeps the air from heating more.
Also, thunderstorms developed several times last month and cooled the air when the temperature threatened to break out of the upper 80s.
1915? That's an 85 year span!
Huh.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Global Foolishness 114
After Hurricane Katrina we were told hurricanes would increase in frequency and severity because of global warming. The following year we had the calmest hurricane season in quite some time. Since, we've been told that hurricanes really don't have much to do with global warming, or we've been told that the reduction in hurricane activity is some how consistent with global warming models.
I think the point isn't whether I know if climate change and hurricanes have a correlation, it's that the experts themselves don't agree.
The most interesting part of the article to me is that Knutson once agreed with those who thought global warming was and would be responsible for more frequent or more intense, or both, hurricanes.
But, I'm sure someone will claim a money trail and pass off this expert as baloney.
I'd prefer a good italian sub.
I think the point isn't whether I know if climate change and hurricanes have a correlation, it's that the experts themselves don't agree.
Study Refutes Link Between Global Warming and Hurricanes.
The most interesting part of the article to me is that Knutson once agreed with those who thought global warming was and would be responsible for more frequent or more intense, or both, hurricanes.
But, I'm sure someone will claim a money trail and pass off this expert as baloney.
I'd prefer a good italian sub.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Global foolishness 115
This isn't new, but I'm sure few people know about it. Several years ago a group of oceanographers launched 3000 robots called Argo Robots for the purpose of studying the ocean's temperatures. I'm sure they wanted to prove the point of global warming, but the data they received was contrary to opinion . . . I'm sorry . . . contrary to the discussion that is no longer a discussion. Turns out, for the past 5 years, there's been no warming at all. A slight cooling, in fact. But, that's brushed off as insignificant. The article from NPR here.
The whole article has a "we're not sure" sort of tone to it.
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
So, along with NASA satellites that CAN accurately measure telling us that the atmosphere isn't warming . . . and now these robots telling us that the oceans haven't warmed . . . what's left?
Oh yeah. The discussion is over.
The whole article has a "we're not sure" sort of tone to it.
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
So, along with NASA satellites that CAN accurately measure telling us that the atmosphere isn't warming . . . and now these robots telling us that the oceans haven't warmed . . . what's left?
Oh yeah. The discussion is over.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Global Foolishness 114
It just keeps pouring in. The NOAA has reported that the 2007/2008 winter season has been the coolest since 2001, putting the IPCC in the hot seat as reported here.
The comment of most interest to me in the article was this:
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics
Something us non-expert, scientifically challenged buffoons have been saying all along.
The comment of most interest to me in the article was this:
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics
Something us non-expert, scientifically challenged buffoons have been saying all along.
Global Foolishness 113
Now, this is a great idea:
Sue Al Gore for Fraud.
It would be interesting to not only call out the so called "experts" on the alarmist side, but also expose the money trail that exists
that the deniers get blamed for all the time.
I doubt this will go anywhere . . . but I hope it does.
Sue Al Gore for Fraud.
It would be interesting to not only call out the so called "experts" on the alarmist side, but also expose the money trail that exists
that the deniers get blamed for all the time.
I doubt this will go anywhere . . . but I hope it does.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Someone's lying!
Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.
Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.
There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.
Global warming is a key theme at this year's meeting of the world's business and political elite in Davos.
OK. Someone is lying. How or where did Gore come up with this? Couldn't have been from the IPCC report which was released LAST YEAR, less than 6 months ago. It doesn't conclude this. If one believes what Gore is telling us then you must believe the IPCC report is wrong. Or, the IPCC report is accurate and Gore is lying.
Which is it?
Of course, it could be that there's so much backlash against the goracle, that he needs to start his fear mongering again.
Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.
Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.
There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.
Global warming is a key theme at this year's meeting of the world's business and political elite in Davos.
OK. Someone is lying. How or where did Gore come up with this? Couldn't have been from the IPCC report which was released LAST YEAR, less than 6 months ago. It doesn't conclude this. If one believes what Gore is telling us then you must believe the IPCC report is wrong. Or, the IPCC report is accurate and Gore is lying.
Which is it?
Of course, it could be that there's so much backlash against the goracle, that he needs to start his fear mongering again.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Tree huggers, here's your guy!
Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.
Look at a map of the US.
The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.
So what we see is that huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles.
Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.
So again, we will see the decline and depopulation of the nation’s vast midsection—noted for its consistent conservatism. Only in the northernmost area, around the Great Lakes (which will be not so great anymore), and along the Canadian border, will there still be enough rain for farming and continued large population concentrations, but those regions, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, are also more liberal in their politics.
Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.
So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.
There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact.
The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.
There will be much work to be done to help the earth and its residents—human and non-human—survive this man-made catastrophe, and we can’t have these future refugee troglodytes, should their personal disasters still fail to make them recognize reality, mucking things up again.
It should be considered acceptable, in this stifling new world, to say, “Shut up. We told you this would happen.”
Do yourself a favor and go to www.thiscantbehappening.net. Very entertaining. Very enlightening . . . although not for reasons intended. Anyway, I love the comment about how it is that like evil people who don't know they're evil, stupid people don't realize they're stupid.
Look at a map of the US.
The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.
So what we see is that huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles.
Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.
So again, we will see the decline and depopulation of the nation’s vast midsection—noted for its consistent conservatism. Only in the northernmost area, around the Great Lakes (which will be not so great anymore), and along the Canadian border, will there still be enough rain for farming and continued large population concentrations, but those regions, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, are also more liberal in their politics.
Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.
So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.
There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact.
The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.
There will be much work to be done to help the earth and its residents—human and non-human—survive this man-made catastrophe, and we can’t have these future refugee troglodytes, should their personal disasters still fail to make them recognize reality, mucking things up again.
It should be considered acceptable, in this stifling new world, to say, “Shut up. We told you this would happen.”
Do yourself a favor and go to www.thiscantbehappening.net. Very entertaining. Very enlightening . . . although not for reasons intended. Anyway, I love the comment about how it is that like evil people who don't know they're evil, stupid people don't realize they're stupid.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Global Foolishness, Part . . . 1537 or something
The most insistent article to date:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
I've blogged on this here and at other blogs. First, the notion of "consensus" was always in question. Two, the accuracy of the Algore fairy tale was always in question. Three, descent on the issue has grown, and includes former believers and scientists who were part of the IPCC panel. Four, obvious questions about water vapor, the sun, and the difference in satellite readings to ground readings were never answered. Five, while there might be a money trail for some deniers, there's a larger one for the alarmists. Six, some "facts" and "predictions" have already changed. The coldest year on record, the rise in sea level, the rise in temperature have all changed. Seven, environmentalists conveniently use global warming to answer both sides of an issue. Eight, the issue has risen to incredibly ridiculous levels with everything from farting cows, to exercising, to having babies, to divorce all contributing to the decline of the earth.
The debate is over. Mother Earth, 4.5 billion. Al Gore, 0. The earth wins.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
I've blogged on this here and at other blogs. First, the notion of "consensus" was always in question. Two, the accuracy of the Algore fairy tale was always in question. Three, descent on the issue has grown, and includes former believers and scientists who were part of the IPCC panel. Four, obvious questions about water vapor, the sun, and the difference in satellite readings to ground readings were never answered. Five, while there might be a money trail for some deniers, there's a larger one for the alarmists. Six, some "facts" and "predictions" have already changed. The coldest year on record, the rise in sea level, the rise in temperature have all changed. Seven, environmentalists conveniently use global warming to answer both sides of an issue. Eight, the issue has risen to incredibly ridiculous levels with everything from farting cows, to exercising, to having babies, to divorce all contributing to the decline of the earth.
The debate is over. Mother Earth, 4.5 billion. Al Gore, 0. The earth wins.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
So, what's the answer?
Once again, hurricane predictions were way off for this year. What I like about global warming alarmists, is that they can use global warming to answer both sides of a question. More hurricanes? Global warming. Fewer hurricanes? El Niño apparently is to blame . . . which some say is fueled, in part, by global warming. Of course.
Meanwhile, Maine and North Dakota are already breaking records with snowfall. But that's just the climate issue. Our energy needs are another issue.
What's ironic, is that the environmentalists don't seem to want to do anything practical about a solution to our energy needs. The fact is, we are where we are. We like our cars, ipods, cable TV, high speed internet, and all of the other things that make each decade more advanced than the previous. And it all takes energy to produce and/or operate. In Texas, a wind farm . . . a massive wind farm . . . is being challenged by environmentalists.
The federal suit, filed in U.S. Western District Court in Austin, said the turbines could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay.
Personally, for what you get from wind turbines, I think they're a waste of space. Ted Kennedy doesn't want them in his backyard. For all I know there's merit to the Texas challenge. But that's not the point. If coal is bad, nuclear is bad, wind turbines kill birds and thus are bad, what's left? In Texas, several coal plants have been cancelled due to challenges by the environmentalist groups. Now this. What about solar energy? Well, it likely less efficient than wind energy, and it takes a lot of resources to manufacture. A process that includes strip mining for the materials needed for the cells. Not to mention production factories . . . not to mention storage cells containing lead and sulfuric acid . . . lots of and big storage cells . . . not to mention the space needed for the solar panels. Lots of space. Space that I'm sure would displace many species of living things.
So, solar is bad.
Life sucks. Energy, that is. Meanwhile, people complain about the high costs of gas and electricity. Well, it has to come from somewhere. But where?
Meanwhile, Maine and North Dakota are already breaking records with snowfall. But that's just the climate issue. Our energy needs are another issue.
What's ironic, is that the environmentalists don't seem to want to do anything practical about a solution to our energy needs. The fact is, we are where we are. We like our cars, ipods, cable TV, high speed internet, and all of the other things that make each decade more advanced than the previous. And it all takes energy to produce and/or operate. In Texas, a wind farm . . . a massive wind farm . . . is being challenged by environmentalists.
The federal suit, filed in U.S. Western District Court in Austin, said the turbines could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay.
Personally, for what you get from wind turbines, I think they're a waste of space. Ted Kennedy doesn't want them in his backyard. For all I know there's merit to the Texas challenge. But that's not the point. If coal is bad, nuclear is bad, wind turbines kill birds and thus are bad, what's left? In Texas, several coal plants have been cancelled due to challenges by the environmentalist groups. Now this. What about solar energy? Well, it likely less efficient than wind energy, and it takes a lot of resources to manufacture. A process that includes strip mining for the materials needed for the cells. Not to mention production factories . . . not to mention storage cells containing lead and sulfuric acid . . . lots of and big storage cells . . . not to mention the space needed for the solar panels. Lots of space. Space that I'm sure would displace many species of living things.
So, solar is bad.
Life sucks. Energy, that is. Meanwhile, people complain about the high costs of gas and electricity. Well, it has to come from somewhere. But where?
Global foolishness
Well, you can marry, but you shouldn't have kids. We need to stick a cork in many an animal's butt to keep them from farting. And, you shouldn't exercise. All these things contribute to global warming. What's next? Divorce.
WASHINGTON - Divorce can be bad for the environment. In countries around the world divorce rates have been rising, and each time a family dissolves the result is two new households.
"A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," said Jianguo Liu, an ecologist at Michigan State University whose analysis of the environmental impact of divorce appears in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The whole article is here:
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20071204/ap_on_sc/divorce_environment.html
Maybe one of the divorced occupies a space that was previously occupied? Nah.
So, there you have it. If you've been divorced, you're contributing to the decline of the earth.
WASHINGTON - Divorce can be bad for the environment. In countries around the world divorce rates have been rising, and each time a family dissolves the result is two new households.
"A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," said Jianguo Liu, an ecologist at Michigan State University whose analysis of the environmental impact of divorce appears in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The whole article is here:
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20071204/ap_on_sc/divorce_environment.html
Maybe one of the divorced occupies a space that was previously occupied? Nah.
So, there you have it. If you've been divorced, you're contributing to the decline of the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)