Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » If We Just Try It One More Time…….

Living here deep behind enemy lines in blue New England the sheer batshit insanity of ordinary liberalism is generally unremarkable from my perspective.

However, on occasion the openly hostile anti-American, socialist viewpoint just overcomes even my Imperial Saboteur Correspondent’s sense of outrage.

Obviously, most of us see the blatant bias of the media on a regular basis and refuse to watch the drivel coming to us via RF energy let alone pay for birdcage liners/puppy housebreaking material. Thank you, we’ll get our news from sources of our own choosing, with proper substantiation. We know you really, really hate the blogosphere. Mustn’t have the plebes getting raw information and drawing our own conclusions, eh?

We went out for lunch today and I grabbed a copy of one of our local newspapers to peruse waiting for lunch (no I didn’t buy it, somebody left it behind). It featured a full page-width photo of light haze over Fresno, People’s Republic of Kaliforniastan. The caption “Blue sky tops a layer of smog that blankets Fresno, Ca. in this 2002 photo. Pollution’s pall may soon darken the primacy of Western culture [emphasis mine].”

What in the name of Stalin’s Sphincter is this about?

This is not the usual, run-of-mill socialist/libtard drivel, it elevates the utter failure of liberalism, socialism, collectivism and it’s attendant economic models to spectacular levels of pernicious, malignant thought. With carefree abandon, the author gargles Lenin’s testicles, gets a colonoscopy from Fidel’s antique (and assuming ambient temperature) prick and gives a hand job to George Soros and his fellow travelers simultaneously. I’m sure even Marx was pitching a tent with whatever the maggots left (even they have some taste) seeing this vomitus in print.

I’ll be thoughtful and issue the customary Rott *SPEW WARNING*, yes it’s that bad. You have been warned, please remain in your seats and return the seat-back trays to the upright position until the post is fully read. You may want to remove breakables and firearms from your immediate vicinity before proceeding.

Yes it’s that bad, it really is.

The End Of The West?

By Anatol Lieven. Bio HERE. Sounds pretty plain vanilla, euro-weenie lib/socialist/progressive right? What does he really think? Helpful insight here: Conversations with History: Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

Of course his elitist, intellectual world view is grossly anti-semitic. Why am I not surprised?

Let’s roll:

Every political, social and economic system ever created has sooner or later encountered a challenge that its very nature has made it incapable of meeting.

The Confucian ruling system of imperial China, which lasted for more than 2,000 years, has some claim still to be the most successful in history, but because it was founded on values of stability and continuity, rather than dynamism and inventiveness, it eventually proved unable to survive in the face of Western imperial capitalism.
[emph mine]

Nice opener, I do note that dynastic China’s history predates the fully developed capitalist, free-market system by a bit. But what’s a few thousand years, when we can blame capitalism. China’s dynastic period ended in 1912 from internal civil strife. Confucisim was a philosophy intergrated into Taoism and influenced a theocratic government model during the Han dynasty, spanning from 200 BC-200 AD. Considering Western Imperialism in your context would likely be the emergence of the British Empire, I’ll call bullshit on the play. I’ll be generous and give you loss of down and a 1500 year penalty. I can read too, asshole.

For market economies, and the Western model of democracy with which they have been associated, the existential challenge for the foreseeable future will be global warming.

Nice, we’ll just skip any pretense of logical connection and make a finite statement without attribute or even a nuanced correlation. The intellectual snobbery is astounding. Let’s just pretend that the colossal myth of Global Warming is true (just play along with me here). Western civilization government (read representative/constitutional models) results in unsustainable economic models which in turn cause catastrophic environmental conditions which require abandoning our economic models and government. To what end? The question is left open as to what or why would changing either reverse the cataclysm it presupposes is already underway? Even your fairy-tale Marxist-Leninist Utopian horse-shit can’t buy us a “do-over” in the space-time continuum. It’s your assertion that an alternative socio-economic system must or should exist, but you carefully avoid an explanation of “how” it would stymie the condition already in progress. You over-reached in your assertion moron, creating a paradox. A Mobius strip posit, therefore without merit and utterly vacuous. Null Program.

Oh by the way, I suppose you didn’t read the portion of the Beeb’s analysis quoting Stern “However, he warns that we are too late to prevent any deleterious consequences from climate change”. Unfortunately your further bleating for immediately converting to socialist government and economic models is stopped cold by that statement in the lunatic “study”. But you didn’t expect the unwashed masses, rapturously in thrall to your intellectual babble, would even consider fact-checking.

Nice try Skippy-intellectual/elitist cum-journalism at it’s finest. Totally dishonest by carefully selecting only talking points that reinforce your conclusions and wantonly ignoring anything that detracts or impeaches it’s veracity.

Other threats like terrorism may well be damaging, but no other conceivable threat or combination of threats can possibly destroy our entire system. As the recent British official commission chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern correctly stated, climate change “is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.”

So, psychotic, fanatics with a stated, demonstrable goal of eradication and subjugation or genocide under the guise of religious purity are only damaging, but global warming is the only real threat to civilization? Allow me a parallel example: An armed goblin just broke into your residence, you elect to not to hide (of course I don’t expect you to actually defend yourself) in the closet, because everybody knows the boogeyman will get you in there. Is that close enough? Instead you can just freeze, urinate and defecate in your skid-marked, Fruit of the Looms.

The question now facing us is whether global capitalism and Western democracy can follow the Stern report’s recommendations, and make the limited economic adjustments necessary to keep global warming within bounds that will allow us to preserve our system in a recognizable form; or whether our system is so dependent on unlimited consumption that it is by its nature incapable of demanding even small sacrifices from its present elites and populations.

Said limited adjustments including a reduction of energy-production carbon emissions by 60-70%. Barring a yet undiscovered miracle energy source, that would mean reducing world-wide power production by an equivalent amount. So, numb-nuts we’ll just black-out the North American land mass and save the world at the cost of returning the U.S. to the 17th century economically and lose a few hundred million lives in the process. But Gaia will be safe from the depradations of Global Warming for a bit longer.

If the latter proves the case, and the world suffers radically destructive climate change, then we must recognize that everything that the West now stands for will be rejected by future generations. The entire democratic capitalist system will be seen to have failed utterly as a model for humanity and as a custodian of essential human interests.

Ahh.. the utter failure of representative governments and free-market economies that everybody in the malodorous halls of academe knows. The Soviet Union Cuba North Korea People’s Utopian Republic of Unicornistan stands as a prime example of the perfect model for human interests and government.

Even the relatively conservative predictions offered by the Stern report, of a drop in annual global gross domestic product of up to 20 percent by the end of this century, imply a crisis on the scale of the Great Depression of the 1930s; and as we know, the effects of that depression were not restricted to economics. In much of Europe, as well as Latin America and Japan, democracies collapsed and were replaced by authoritarian regimes.

I’ll state your basic premise, you started with an Anti-American, pro-Socialist meme. Built it further on junk science, masturbated Al Gore (who still lost), used the Great Depression as a historic indicator and conclude the only way to save humanity is returning to a system that murdered over a hundred million people and still failed economically. Unfortunately you picked another example that belies your talking point. The Great Depression was caused by the collapse of the stock market by unscrupulous trade practices NOT a drop on the GDP. That chicken didn’t quite cross the road in this shop, puss-bag.

As the report makes clear, however, if we continue with “business as usual” when it comes to the emission of greenhouse gases, then we will not have to wait till the end of the century to see disastrous consequences. Long before then, a combination of floods, droughts and famine will have destroyed states in many poorer parts of the earth as has already occurred in recent decades in Somalia.

Wow !!! Thanks for the education, and here I thought Somalia was devastated by brutal war lords and the emergence of radical Islam attempting to overthrow the legitimate government. You might want to send Ayman al-Zawahiri a memo, reminding him his problems over there are due to global warming and not the people and legitimate government refusing to accept the boot of Sharia tyranny.

If the conservative estimates of the Stern report are correct, then already by 2050 the effects of climate change may be such as to wreck the societies of Pakistan and Bangladesh; and if these states collapse, how can India and other countries possibly insulate themselves?

Now you’re scaring me, the shining examples of good government, prosperity and progress demonstrated by Bangladesh will be wrecked? The horror of it all.

At that point, not only will today’s obsessive concern with terrorism appear insignificant, but all the democratizing efforts of Western states, and of private individuals and bodies like George Soros and his Open Society Institute, will be rendered completely meaningless. So, of course, will every effort directed today toward the reduction of poverty and disease.

See if we would just stop obsessing about turbaned madmen blowing up innocent people, hacking off heads while singing the praises of allah and calling for the annihilation of Israel and genocide or conversion of all dhimmis, we could get on with appointing Soros and his ilk, benevolent Emperors of the World. After all they would cure all disease, end poverty (statistically impossible-but I won’t even try to explain this to you) and bring about a harmonious world-order and we could all sing Kumbayah while flying kites assisted by purple dinosaurs.

And this is only to examine the likely medium-term consequences of climate change. For the further future, the report predicts that if we continue with business as usual, then the rise in average global temperature could well top 5 degrees Celsius. To judge by what we know of the history of the world’s climate, this would almost certainly lead to the melting of the polar ice caps, and a rise in sea levels of up to 25 meters.

Well, you’ve already returned a significant portion of the world to paleolithic life, they’ll just have to find caves at higher elevations. Not to worry…

As pointed out by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth,” this would mean the end of many of the world’s greatest cities. The resulting human migration could be on such a scale as to bring modern civilization to an end.

If this comes to pass, what will our descendants make of a political and media culture that devotes little attention to this threat when compared with sports, consumer goods, leisure and a threat from terrorism that is puny by comparison? Will they remember us as great paragons of human progress and freedom? They are more likely to spit on our graves.

And they can piss on my grave, while they’re at it. I do hope you save your own descendants from this horror by immediately castrating yourself along with the rest of your fellow socialist swine.

Underlying Western free-market democracy, and its American form in particular, is the belief that this system is of permanent value to mankind: a “New Order of the Ages,” as the motto on the U.S. Great Seal has it. It is not supposed to serve only the short-term and selfish interests of existing Western populations. If our system is indeed no more than that, then it will pass from history even more utterly than Confucian China and will deserve to do so.

Another BULLSHIT FLAG has been thrown on the play. The term you refer to: NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM is a transliteration of Latin to mean “The Beginning of the New American Era, an allusion of providence in favor of the American cause of representative governance. We like to call it Freedom and Self-Determination in the vernacular. Hardly a reference to the decadent, bourgeoisie self-interests of a tyrannic ruling-class. Obviously you favor Engles in his stunning vision of the proper role of the state. I’ll be magnanimous and give you an orgasmic quote “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”. There, and you missed a bit of seminal plasma between the “shift” and “caplocks” key. Don’t worry you’ll have plenty more oozing out of your rectum, after all Kim-Jong Mentally Ill gives you a rectal massage, as soon as he’s done with the 5-year old twin girls.

I’m sure Anatol-Baby would appreciate some attention, he can be reached at the New America Foundation HERE. Don’t you just love his, “I just got corn-holed by every communist in history smirk” ?

34 Responses to “If We Just Try It One More Time…….”
  1. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte UNITED STATES

    Its unreadable shit like this that turned me away from reading actual printed magazines and papers.

    I wonder how he would feel if we decided to go with the imperial chinese idea of government. You know, emperor as a living god and all that. No real need for the pesants to read so your out of a job and working for your local ruler in the fields or whatever task he assigns you.

  2. Kristopher Comment by Kristopher UNITED STATES

    Unfortunately, his translation of Novus Ordo Seclorum is probably correct.

    A New-World Order would be stated “Novus Ordo Mundi”.

    A New-World Era would be stated “Novus Seclorum Mundi” ( or was that “Novus Mundi Seclorum” …. gah ….. )

    Novus = New or Novel
    Ordo = what you think it means
    Seclorum = Ages, Era, or sequence ( not secular )

  3. L.C. Rowane Comment by L.C. Rowane UNITED STATES

    I’ve gotta agree with DK, here the writer of this twaddle is WAY too full of assumptions and himself to put together a coherent sentence.

    I wonder if he factored in the thousands of climatologists who say that the world is only undergoing a periodic cycle. I remember reading somewhere that we would be in the beginning of an ice age if it weren’t for man’s additions.

  4. Cannon Fodder Comment by Cannon Fodder

    The big words in that article were worth more that the article in the whole itself.

  5. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR UNITED STATES

    Kristopher- That is correct, however Charles Thomson, the founder chosen by the Continental Congress to design the seal, provided an explanation of the use of the term HERE.

    Tis’ why I specifically used the term “transliteration” pointing out it was a symbolic referent as opposed to a direct one.

    Unlike our detractors, I try to back-up my arguments with reasonably credible sources. Notice the link is NOT Wikipedia.

  6. cmblake6 Comment by cmblake6

    Feathers! This thing ain’t working for me at all! Read the piece, and was further disgusted. Santayana was a true prophet. We know why the great empires of history collapsed. All WE have to do is avoid the same mistakes. Too simple.

  7. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy UNITED KINGDOM

    troll

    The author’s case is very simple. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Deny it all you want but that doesn’t change a damn thing. The earth is getting warmer and it has a lot to do with the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. To reiterate, this is a fact. Go live on the moon if it doesn’t suit you.

    Further to this, if the market is unable to provide solutions to anthropogenic global warming, it will constitute a market failure, namely the failure of certain sections of the market to efficiently process their own externalities.

    Bitch all you like, but the guy has a point.

  8. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy UNITED KINGDOM

    P.S. - DJ, I don’t know if it’s the browser I’m using or the changes you’ve recently implemented, but the comments box is partially obscured by the “Recent Comments” sidebar. Just thought you’d like to know.

  9. Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur UNITED STATES

    I’d like to comment, but the left hand side information bar is in the way.

  10. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Muzzy barfs out:

    The author’s case is very simple.

    Yup. A simple case of insanity.

    Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.

    Only true if you are God and thus have the authority to make something so just by your say so.

    Deny it all you want but that doesn’t change a **** thing.

    Claim it all you want and that doesn’t change a falsehood into a truth either.

    The earth is getting warmer and it has a lot to do with the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere.

    Shoot, those jupitarians and martians better stop driving those SUVs then or by the time we wear out this planet we won’t be able to migrate to either of those becuase they will have been ruined by their eeevil capitalistic SUV-driving ways too! Maybe that’s why Venus is such a volcanic super-hot hell-hole. The martians moved out a couple planets after they finished ruining that previously perfectly good planet.

    To reiterate, this is a fact. Go live on the moon if it doesn’t suit you.

    I would be delighted to do so, but only if you will join me. Oh and there’s only one space suit and it has my name on it. But don’t worry, I’m sure the great al gore will protect you from the twin problems of decompression and freezing to death by spewing massive amounts of hot air into your vicinity as soon as you step out of the airlock. No, really! What, you saying you don’t trust me?

    Further to this, if the market is unable to provide solutions to anthropogenic global warming, it will constitute a market failure, namely the failure of certain sections of the market to efficiently process their own externalities.

    Until you prove that there actually is a problem — instead of state a lie as a fact and then claim that because you say so it becomes true — this is a big pile of $5 words full of bull and short on reality.

    Bitch all you like, but the guy has a point.

    Yup again, except that it’s at the top of his skull because the shortage of brains where they are supposed to be hidden has caused the top to collapse into a pyramid shape.

    RH

  11. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    I’d like to comment, but the left hand side information bar is in the way.

    Odd. I just tested it with Internet Exploder and I don’t see a problem.

  12. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR UNITED STATES

    Well, look who’s back for another dose-

    Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.

    Well I guess that settles it. Muzzy learns a new “big” word and suddenly an observation connected to questionable theory is factual. Basic scientific principles fail to draw any connection between Man and global climatology. The first and foremost reason being reliable data hasn’t been recorded by humans for a sufficient period of time to yield statistically significant results. We do know from inferred indicators of prehistoric temperature changes there are indeed cyclical variations of the earth’s temperature measured over very long periods of history. Man has only been industrialized for essentially the last hundred years. Additionally most of the alleged “scientific” studies cited by the warming crowd are demonstrably dishonest, having been based solely on review of existing data, selecting a window that yields the desired outcome. It’s a method that’s been used by the left and enviro-loons for a long time for the current cause celebre. The first being used against the nuclear power industry by the infamous and dishonest academic Dr. Ernest Sternglass. Those of us having attained an age to remember these things, recall the last “We’re all going to die !!” was the climatology indicated earth was approaching an Ice Age. Of course the additional “Hole in the Ozone” layer scam is right up there to with the phony theory, that we’ll all die of skin cancer tomorrow. Results– the economy took a mult-trillion dollar “hit” to eliminate CFCs AND the hole magically disappeared. We were told that was irreversible too. Just wait until your old enough to drive and your car needs the A/C recharged. Oh, pardon me, I’m certain you’ll use pubic transportation after you outgrow your training-wheels.

    The “Global Warming” theories, now that honest academia is looking carefully at it, is undermining it’s credibility causing crowd to whine even louder. Your hero, Al Gore’s movie was more to drum up even more taxpayer funded research for the globalist left as well as trying to maintain his own political stature. Even if (and that’s a big if)a correlation is revealed between industrial development and greenhouse gases causing irreparable climatology changes, only a wealth producing economic system is capable of generating the necessary funding to mitigate the problem. U.S. industry is demonstrably able to take care of the “externalities” of industry, evidenced by all indicators of early 20th century pollutants on the decline. Why, because it’s in their own best interest. Your crowd would have the industrialized countries set back technological process a hundred years in sacrifice on the altar of junk science, ensuring that a solution to a dubious at best, problem would NEVER be solved.

    Another fact that you chose to note is a number of the Kyoto signatories have now backed out of it’s economic suicide pact. How odd?

    You can toss “it’s a fact” out all you want and reiterate, banging your sippy cup all you want, but it won’t make the economics and science any more truthful. Give us one just ONE entirely credible study that provides a clear connection of the “anthropogenic” aspect of climatology or simply shut-your-piehole.

    Market failure my ass, obviously the moron writing this is advocating for a socialist economy where individuals and property rights are subordinate to the collective statists. Study economics a bit instead of cutting and pasting the latest “talking-points” from Al Gore’s well probed anus….socialist economics have failed everytime they’ve been tried. The environmental impact (utter devastation) created by your heroes the erstwhile Soviet Union are astounding.

    Go live on the moon if it doesn’t suit you.

    Whiny little jerk-offs like you are encouraged to do their share to help save Mother Gaia and suicide now. I’ll fucking well thank you to do it on your own dime Asswipe.

    Better log-off the computer now or mommy will give you a time-out, besides you need to change your pull-ups.

    FuckWad

  13. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR UNITED STATES

    #10 LC RobertHuntingdon-

    Bravo my friend, a fine swing of the clue-bat. Our Rotts are sooo deelightful.

    Keep up the good work pups..there’s plenty more left.

    :clap_tb:

  14. Wild-Eyed Charlie Comment by Wild-Eyed Charlie UNITED STATES

    The sidebar works just fine in NS 7.2. Maybe if the ijit would stop drawing on the screen with his crayons…

  15. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy UNITED KINGDOM

    Yup. A simple case of insanity.

    Cheap ad hominem attack duly noted. Thanks. If the world needs anything it’s more of those.

    Only true if you are God and thus have the authority to make something so just by your say so.

    Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Check out this graph:

    Global Average Temperature Chart

    Note the massive temperature spike in the last 20 years. That the earth is getting hotter is undeniable. If you don’t believe the graph, simply note the shrinkage of Greenland’s ice sheet, among other ice masses.

    Now check out this table:

    Atmospheric CO2 concentrations

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm from pre-industrial times to 377ppm today, a 34% increase. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the concentration of methane, another greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere has risen 145% in the last 100 years.

    So, let’s recap. We know that the earth is getting warmer. We also know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases, which are responsible for trapping heat, are rising exponentially. Furthermore, we can see both these things happening at the same time.

    You’ll forgive me for siding with the most august scientific bodies on the planet when they stubbornly insist that, yes, 2+2 really does equal 4.

    Shoot, those jupitarians and martians better stop driving those SUVs then or by the time we wear out this planet we won’t be able to migrate to either of those becuase they will have been ruined by their eeevil capitalistic SUV-driving ways too! Maybe that’s why Venus is such a volcanic super-hot hell-hole. The martians moved out a couple planets after they finished ruining that previously perfectly good planet.

    What on earth are you babbling about? Does this inane, stream-of-consciousness gibberish really pass for debate in your circles?

    I would be delighted to do so, but only if you will join me. Oh and there’s only one space suit and it has my name on it. But don’t worry, I’m sure the great al gore will protect you from the twin problems of decompression and freezing to death by spewing massive amounts of hot air into your vicinity as soon as you step out of the airlock. No, really! What, you saying you don’t trust me?

    Al Gore, it would seem, knows an awful lot more about climatology than you. Check out this review, written by a PhD holding climatologist:

    A review of An Inconvenient Truth

    Until you prove that there actually is a problem — instead of state a lie as a fact and then claim that because you say so it becomes true — this is a big pile of $5 words full of bull and short on reality.

    There, there. No need to get petulant because you have a limited vocabulary and don’t understand simple economic terms like ‘Externality’. The fact of the matter is that the excess CO2 in our atmosphere is largely a byproduct of industry. If the private sector cannot manage its own pollution, and this pollution hampers the smooth processes of the market, then this constitutes a market failure.

    Yup again, except that blah, blah, blah,

    Trite, unoriginal invective snipped for space.

  16. Unregistered Comment by charles68 UNITED STATES

    “Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.”

    It is??? Say’s who? Scientists still cannot form a consensus on whether or not the earth is is in a long term warming or cooling trend - let alone what might be the cause.

    The 100 year avg temp chart doesn’t prove anything. 100 years does not even register as a single blip data point in trends that develop over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

    The earth may be warming up. Or maybe not. In any case, natural processes from both our planet as well as dear sol have several more magnitudes of importance than anthropogenic co2.

    Could someone please provide a link from some authoritative scientific body that supports the claim that “Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.”

    Thanks.

  17. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    It is??? Say’s who? Scientists still cannot form a consensus on whether or not the earth is is in a long term warming or cooling trend - let alone what might be the cause.

    Of course it is.

    Temperatures have risen, CO2 levels have risen, ergo it’s all mankind’s fault.

    Also, trouts live in trees and if I buy kippers, it will not rain.

    Pure logic, man.

  18. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR UNITED STATES

    Muzzy sticking to his guns, STILL ignoring the real question. Statistics are statistics. Charts showing changes don’t stand as prima-facie evidence. Please answer the following questions:

    1. Show me credible evidence that the exhibited data are a direct result of human (and human alone) industrial technology.

    2. If question (1) is true, then what is a realistic solution that avoids devastation of socio-economic progress to solve it? Don’t even try socialism, that’s a non-starter.

    3. If the situation is factually true in (1) above, prove the condition is not a convergent oscillation and will NOT reach a dynamic balance without intervention, short of genocide.

    Global Average Temperature Chart

    Oooo, pretty graphs, but the displayed X-Y axis labels don’t yield any discernible conclusions. Just raw data.

    Atmospheric CO2 concentrations

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm from pre-industrial times to 377ppm today

    The chart is in situ samples from Mauna Loa Observatory, and I noticed they only cover from 1958 onwards. Am I to believe 1957 a was pre-industrialized period? Or does your data fall apart including that arbitrary cut-off point? A basic problem with planet-wide conclusions on climate variations, decreases statistical confidence levels with decreasing datapoints. Perhaps an analogy is appropriate, you are basing a prediction of global tendencies on a single location. That’s scientifically analogous to forecasting Miami weather based on observations in the Himalayas.

    You’ll forgive me for siding with the most august scientific bodies

    Al Gore, it would seem, knows an awful lot more about climatology than you. Check out this review, written by a PhD holding climatologist:

    You hold out “August” scientific bodies, yet provide a single phD that just happens to be double-teaming with you, licking Al Gore’s ass crack. Is there ANY possibility the phD (and the link doesn’t work) quoted has his own Agenda (namely continued funding of his own bank account)? Honest research wouldn’t be built on Gorebot’s movie? Would it not actually do research on the global climate?

    The question stands shirtbird. Whine about ad hominem attacks all you want, but you receive the treatment you engender with the elitist attitude.

  19. SoCalOilMan, LC Comment by SoCalOilMan, LC UNITED STATES

    Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Check out this graph:

    A graph that starts in 1850, while we were still pulling out of the “Little Ice Age”.

    From Wikiipedia: (please no grief from using this source, it was handy) :wacko_tb:

    Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries while others suggest a span from the 13th to 17th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals [1].

    Remember, the Delaware River was freezing over in 1776.

    So it would seem that they trend would be towards warmer nowadays, cept we don’t like to look at facts that could contradict our argument. Ther is no cycle of temperature, it’s just like southern California, 72 and sunny, always.

  20. Unregistered Comment by charles68 UNITED STATES

    Hmmmm….

    Harumph…

    Ferdelschwop…

  21. Unregistered Comment by charles68 UNITED STATES

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=79

  22. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy UNITED KINGDOM

    Well, look who’s back for another dose

    I didn’t realize you’d gone anywhere :biggrin_wp:

    Well I guess that settles it. Muzzy learns a new “big” word and suddenly an observation connected to questionable theory is factual.

    No, what settles this issue is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming theories. I gave some of it in my post above, would you care to share your opinion on it?

    Basic scientific principles fail to draw any connection between Man and global climatology.

    As we shall see, this is objectively untrue.

    The first and foremost reason being reliable data hasn’t been recorded by humans for a sufficient period of time to yield statistically significant results.

    How do you define “sufficient period of time”? The source I cited above goes back 120 years. However, there is another direct measurement record available that can tell us things about temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements. You can read up on the specifics of the technique at this site:

    Borehole measurement technique

    Using borehole data, we have ascertained that temperatures have not been consistently this high at any point in the last 500 years. See this site for further explanation:

    Borehole date over the last 500 years

    And this graph which displays the findings in an easy to understand format:

    Borehole data graph

    If 500 years is “insufficient”, let’s try 1000. It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back, using what are called proxy data. These include things like tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others. Each record shows similar patterns of temperature change over the last 1000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

    Thus, we can reasonably say that it is now warmer than at any time in the last 1000 years.

    We can go back further still, if you’d like. Let’s travel back in time to the Holocene Climatic Optimum which occurred approximately 6000 years ago.

    The Holocene Climatic Optimum had long been cautiously thought to be almost as warm or even warmer than now. However, recent data has cast this assumption into significant doubt. Check this site for details:

    The HCO was not the warmest period in the last 10,000 years

    Recent findings indicate that the anomalous warmth of that time was actually confined to the northern hemisphere and occurred only in the summer months. Average global temperatures were actually lower during the Holocene climate optimum than they are right now.

    The graph linked to below contains eight reconstructions of the Holocene temperature, both global and regional, all superimposed, with an average of each plotted out. This represents the best estimate available of average global temperatures during the Holocene.

    Holocene Graph

    Thus, we can reasonably say that it is now warmer than at any time in the last ten thousand years.

    I’m sure you know what an interglacial is, but for those readers who are unfamiliar with the term I’ll quickly explain. An interglacial is a geological interval of warmer global average temperatures which separates ice ages. We can read these average temperatures with a high degree of accuracy using ice core data. As an added plus, this data also tells us to a high degree of accuracy just how much methane and CO2 was in the atmosphere at the time.

    This graph from the IPCC shows how temperature, along with methane and CO2 levels has fluctuated in the last 400,000 years.

    IPCC graph

    If our reading of the Holocene is correct (and the vast body of evidence from tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth and stalagmite layers gives us ample reason to assume that it is) it is currently warmer today than at any point in the last hundred thousand years.

    Is that far back enough for you?

    We do know from inferred indicators of prehistoric temperature changes there are indeed cyclical variations of the earth’s temperature measured over very long periods of history. Man has only been industrialized for essentially the last hundred years.

    That’s kinda the point. During the last hundred years we have artificially inflated atmospheric CO2 and methane levels to the point that it is warmer today than at any point in the history of our species.

    Additionally most of the alleged “scientific” studies cited by the warming crowd are demonstrably dishonest, having been based solely on review of existing data, selecting a window that yields the desired outcome.

    As I have demonstrated above, this is objectively untrue. Data points taken at the time intervals of your choosing will always yield the same result: We’ve never been so warm, and it’s getting warmer every year.

    It’s a method that’s been used by the left and enviro-loons for a long time for the current cause celebre.

    Gratuitous partisan ad hominem noted. It’s good to see you wear your bias on your sleeve.

    The first being used against the nuclear power industry by the infamous and dishonest academic Dr. Ernest Sternglass.

    This little factoid is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Of course the additional “Hole in the Ozone” layer scam is right up there to with the phony theory, that we’ll all die of skin cancer tomorrow.

    The hole in the ozone layer “scam”? Do you deny that there was ever a hole in the ozone layer? And since you mentioned skin cancer, did you know that skin cancer rates are rising exponentially? See this cite for details:

    Skin Cancer Details

    Results– the economy took a multi-trillion dollar “hit” to eliminate CFCs AND the hole magically disappeared.

    Cite for the claim that the economy took a multi-trillion dollar hit. I don’t deny that it did take a hit, but I’m skeptical of the claim that the hit was strong enough to wipe trillions of dollars off the global economy.

    We were told that was irreversible too.

    I would like two or more cites from respected peer reviewed scientific journals stating categorically that the ozone hole was irreversible. I do not recall such a claim ever being made.

    Just wait until you’re old enough to blah, blah, blah

    Gratuitous ad hominem snipped for space. I’m 26, by the way.

    The “Global Warming” theories, now that honest academia is looking carefully at it, is undermining it’s credibility causing crowd to whine even louder.

    Hardly! The fact of the matter is that anthropogenic global warming is not in any doubt among reputable mainstream climatologists. Here is a list of august scientific bodies which accept that anthropogenic global warming is real and scientifically well supported:

    NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies

    National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration

    The IPCC

    The National Academy of Sciences

    State of the Canadian Cryosphere

    The Environmental Protection Agency

    The Royal Society

    The American Geophysical Union

    The American Meterological Society

    The National Center for Atmospheric Research

    Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

    In addition, see this joint statement below:
    Joint Statement (warning: PDF)

    This statement clearly and unequivocally supports the conclusions of the IPCC’s third global assessment report; that anthropogenic global warming is real and scientifically well supported. This statement was issued by, among others, The Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil), The Royal Society of Canada, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Academie des Sciences (France), The Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), The Indian National Science Academy, The Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), The Royal Society (UK) and The Science Council of Japan.

    But if this isn’t enough, if scientists are too liberal and politicians too dishonest, perhaps you’ll find these statements by key oil industry representatives more convincing:

    There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

    This was from a public release from BP, the source for which is here

    Shell Oil had this to say:

    Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

    Cite here

    Your claim here is a classic example of the ‘No True Scotsman’ logical fallacy. You trust any scientific body so long as they don’t disturb your preconceived notions. As soon as they do, they have proven themselves prima facie dishonest and can be discarded without thought. Needless to say, this is far from intellectually honest. Face facts, your side really is in the minority on this.

    Your hero, Al Gore’s movie was more to drum up even more taxpayer funded research for the globalist left as well as trying to maintain his own political stature.

    As you can see from the review I posted earlier, Al Gore largely got the science correct in his film. As for the matter of taxation…well, no-one likes to see their taxes go up, but given the overwhelming preponderance of factual data supporting global warming, it would be foolish in the extreme to summarily dismiss the possibility that we might need to pony up a little more tax money to fix this undeniably serious problem.

    Even if (and that’s a big if)a correlation is revealed between industrial development and greenhouse gases causing irreparable climatology changes, only a wealth producing economic system is capable of generating the necessary funding to mitigate the problem.

    I agree. While I wouldn’t necessarily be averse to paying a little more tax if it would help moderate atmospheric CO2 levels, I believe that the solution to this problem would be best cultivated in the free market which provides incentives to fix such problems.

    U.S. industry is demonstrably able to take care of the “externalities” of industry, evidenced by all indicators of early 20th century pollutants on the decline.

    Cite?

    Why, because it’s in their own best interest. Your crowd would have the industrialized countries set back technological process a hundred years in sacrifice on the altar of junk science, ensuring that a solution to a dubious at best, problem would NEVER be solved.

    The only junk science in this debate is emanating from your (vanishingly small) side of the aisle. Moreover, your most notable spokesmen in this regard have financial ties to big oil. See this cite for details:

    Skeptics & big oil.

    Speaking of big oil, it goes without saying that their tactics are far from honest:

    Big Oil employing Big Tobacco tactics in global warming debate

    Another fact that you chose to note is a number of the Kyoto signatories have now backed out of it’s economic suicide pact. How odd?

    Meh, there really isn’t any point staying in the Kyoto protocol if the U.S. and China aren’t on board. This doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that, like most people, world leaders will put short term economic gain before long term economic sacrifice, irrespective of the end served by such sacrifice and the potentially cataclysmic effects of short term indulgence.

    You can toss “it’s a fact” out all you want and reiterate, banging your sippy cup all you want, but it won’t make the economics and science any more truthful. Give us one just ONE entirely credible study that provides a clear connection of the “anthropogenic” aspect of climatology or simply shut-your-piehole.

    You clearly don’t understand how scientists form theories. First, they look at the evidence, the overwhelming majority of which supports anthropogenic global warming. Then they make a theory to explain this evidence to wit: Anthropogenic global warming is real. The evidence supporting the theory takes the form of numerous studies, each making a clear link between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. In short, damn near every link I’ve cited so far provides a clear connection between human activity and global warming.

    Market failure my ass, obviously the moron writing this is advocating for a socialist economy where individuals and property rights are subordinate to the collective statists.

    I disagree. He was merely using global warming to critique the market economy. While it may shock you, capitalism isn’t perfect. It’s better than every other economic system but its relative superiority to socialism and communism shouldn’t entirely inure it to criticism when it’s needed.

    Study economics a bit instead of cutting and pasting the latest “talking-points” from Al Gore’s well probed anus….socialist economics have failed everytime they’ve been tried. The environmental impact (utter devastation) created by your heroes the erstwhile Soviet Union are astounding.

    I’m well aware of this and, to the best of my recollection, have not advocated communism at any point. You really need to put down the strawmen and start addressing what your opponents are actually saying. Otherwise you risk coming off as a foaming-at-the-mouth crank.

    Whiny little blah, blah, blah

    Trite, uninventive ad hominems snipped for space. Do a little homework and get back to me.

  23. Muzzy Comment by Muzzy UNITED KINGDOM

    Spam Karma ate my rebuttal to Jackboot. I’ve e-mailed Misha and it, hopefully, it will be up by tomorrow. Goodnight all.

  24. Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur UNITED STATES

    Odd. I just tested it with Internet Exploder and I don’t see a problem.

    Odder still, I see it still at work and here at home.

    As much as I’d love to read Muzzy’s latest load of Mental Manure (c), after reading the well-researched and cited article, I can sum it up in two obsevations:
    Chicken Little type hyperbole with citations to St. Al-jaGora of the global warming. Credibility: Zero. Humor Value: Priceless.

  25. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR UNITED STATES

    Looks to me like your rebuttal is right there #22- or at least I hope so, I don’t think I’ll have the time to read even more from your Al Gore press kit.

    Now you’re real good at cut and paste, but regardless of your use of the emperor’s bandwidth to post endless assertions hardly makes your argument any more relevant. We do recognize it has a dulling effect trying to read through the endless obfuscation of the argument.

    You trust any scientific body so long as they don’t disturb your preconceived notions. As soon as they do, they have proven themselves prima facie dishonest and can be discarded without thought.

    One word-PROJECTION

    Next:

    This little factoid is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Pretty dismissive there aren’t you? That “factoid” is quite relevant to the discussion. If you bothered to study the use of dishonest statistics under the guise of science to sway public policy against a particular “boogey-man” with nefarious motivations you might have understood the relevance.

    Let’s stop dancing around this, I gave you three questions to answer. I’ll be generous and spot you Question #1, that leaves you holding the bag on #2 and especially #3. Your only attempt to deal with the most prescient part of the entire debate- you shot your wad here-

    As for the matter of taxation…well, no-one likes to see their taxes go up, but given the overwhelming preponderance of factual data supporting global warming, it would be foolish in the extreme to summarily dismiss the possibility that we might need to pony up a little more tax money to fix this undeniably serious problem.

    And your “little more tax money” is an understatement of blindingly gargantuan proportions. I referenced the Stern report. Do you really believe that the necessary reduction of 60-70% of industrial CO2 emissions, called for by the report, would amount to “a little more” tax money. The Kyoto Protocol withered on the vine when economists took a look at the final impact on GDP using conservative estimates of the mandates. No industrialized economy could survive a 30+% immediate increase in across the board energy costs.

    Devastating. And THAT young man is THE question. How much are we willing to sacrifice at the altar of environmental causes?

    Are you willing to commit yourself, and your progeny for generations to come to a massive sacrifice of capital wealth on questionable, at best science?

    LC RobertHuntington nailed your sorry ass to the wall here:

    Only true if you are God and thus have the authority to make something so just by your say so.

    Therein is the liberal mindset. You fashion yourselves as smarter than everyone and therefore qualified to make decisions in our stead “for the greater good”. Since we aren’t capable of these decisions ourselves, someone (self-appointed elitists) has to.

    You fool yourselves into thinking that you’ve reached a superiority of deity-like stature.

    Supposing that Man has evolved into such stature that his impact can fundamentally alter the elegant, self-contained eco-system that is called planet Earth and that only YOU and your fellow travelers can save it by gratuitous expenditures of others earned wealth is wrong. It borders on Blasphemy.

    When I am dead and gone and my progeny deceased, feel free to tinker with G_d’s ecological system on your own dime. Good Luck, you aren’t that smart.

  26. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Sorry it took so long to get back to you Mutz-putz, but I had better things to do (like work and stuff like that). Jackboot, Emperor Misha, Charles68 and SoCalOilMan have already taken your “arguments” and bitchslapped them outta the ballpark pretty good, so I’ll tackle the tiny bit they left to me…

    (referring to my mocking line of “Yup. A simple case of insanity.” … Muzzy barfs:)

    Cheap ad hominem attack duly noted. Thanks. If the world needs anything it’s more of those.

    As usual, wrong again. Ad hominem is “attacking the messenger to discredit the message”. Perhaps where you get on the short bus each morning the message you spewed is in need of discrediting, but around here my line was merely merely mocking you and him for being so stupid as to spew such utterly rediculous, arrogant, lunatic baloney and somehow think that we will be impressed by the use of big words.

    (referring to my mocking him about how jupiter and mars — uninhabited planets for all we know — are aparently ALSO going through some glowball-worming…)

    What on earth are you babbling about?

    Since you seem so fond of big and/or latin words, allow me explain using some. Reductio ad absurdum.

    RH

  27. Xystus Comment by Xystus

    If 500 years is “insufficient”, let’s try 1000. It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back, using what are called proxy data. These include things like tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others. Each record shows similar patterns of temperature change over the last 1000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

    Except everything I’ve seen, since I started paying attention, says otherwise. Going back 1000 years takes us to the Medieval Warm Period, when England had its vineyards & the Vikings colonized the Atlantic’s Arctic fringe. Nor did the 20th century progressively warm. Many old heat records, so I noticed years ago, dated from the ’30s. Accounts of the European war in the ’40s mention some unusually cold winters. Being nearly twice µ-z’s given age, I actually remember a good chunk of that century, & when you go back past its last two decades, the winters are more consistently impressive. On the other hand, a mere five centuries ago was the Maunder Minimum/”Little Ice Age,” when a near-disappearance of sunspots coincided with a long cool spell lasting into the 19th century–which just happens to be when warmists like to start their detailed temp graphs!

    References to other planets could be relevant. At least some of us have heard that global warming has recently been detected on Mars. Couldn’t be from solar activity, could it?

    I wouldn’t automatically dismiss all the alleged science the warmists are waving, but some of it may be from questionable sources. The IPCC in particular, being the UN engine driving the drumbeating effort, seems especially unfit.

  28. Unregistered Comment by charles68 UNITED STATES

    Let’s do please show muzzy some empathy. We were all young once. Unless some of us were very lucky, or perhaps unlucky, the harsh realities of the world were slow in engraving themselves on our conciousness. Remember what Churchill said? Young conservative = heartless; old liberal = brainless?

    I do believe Muzzy will come around. He can read. Experience will do the rest. Unless of course he is fully shielded from reality by a large cushion of family cash in which case he will have the leisure to continue his masturbatory hallucinations from his plush white tower.

    In any case, what I can glean from the long term data (which is all that we ought to look at when considering phenomena of this nature) is that we are on the verge of what can be considwered in geological terms as a catastrophic cooling period.

    Let’s look at the correlation between co2 and temp over the last 400,000 years. OK?

    Notice that the temp spikes near the peak are quite radical. Notice that that is where we are now. We are at the peak - or perhaps even past the peak for this cycle. This means we ought to experience a radical cooling trend over the next 10000 years.

    Unfortunately, temp does not seem to follow a smooth curve. The system regulates itself, but only after some very nasty corrections. It could well be the case that if anthropogenic warming is at all true, then we need to get off our asses and start burning fossil fuels if we hope to avoid the prospect of our progeny starving in igloos.

    Or perhaps there isn’t a damn thing we can do. Maybe we live on this planet, but we cannot control it. Our best hope is too develop technology that will allow us to adapt.

    On a side note, here is something we can control by regulation. Do you all recall that the New England fisheries have been basically wiped out? Well duh. Our fishing technology consists of trawling the historic spawning grounds. The nets are dragged along the undersea muck. It is a great technology for catching anything that happens to be down there. But it also shreds the spawning grounds. Imagine billions of delicate cod roe lying in the muck and a caterpillar grader comes along and squashes everything…

    If you can’t figure it out it means that those little eggs do not hatch into little cods that do not grow into big cods that do not make it to my dinner plate.

  29. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I UNITED STATES

    Well, what it all comes down to is that I don’t think that anybody is disputing that the climate changes (just ask the wooly mammoth). This is where the debate often gets derailed.

    When Evil Skeptics such as ourselves start questioning the whole global worming/cooling/climate change hysteria, True Believers will often start shouting “oh yeah? So you’re denying that the average temperature changes?”, and the adults among us will then, after a short while, shake our heads and go have a drink instead of wasting our time any further.

    Nobody is denying that the average temperature has been changing. People of good faith might reasonably question the pinpoint accuracy with which is it documented, seeing as how we haven’t been recording it for all that long, and the data from before that time come from indirect measurements and hypotheses.

    Of course, those methods are, arguably, the best we have, and we have to deal with what we’ve got.

    At any rate, whether estimates of prehistoric temperatures are accurate to the third decimal point or not doesn’t really matter. Nobody with an ounce of sense will deny that the temperature has changed. At least not if they wish to avoid having some serious ’splaining to do regarding the Ice Ages.

    The question IS: Do we cause it? Correlation doesn’t, as most of us know, prove causation. For all that we know, it could be the temperature causing the rise in CO2 levels and not the other way around, or they could be entirely unrelated.

    But, assuming that our 2.5% share of total CO2 emissions is the reason for everything, just for the heck of it (the other 97.5% apparently don’t matter much), what are we supposed to do about it?

    If we wish to reduce our emissions to, say, 1%, we’d have to slash the world economy by 60% and then hope that it makes a difference. If not, our kids and grandkids will just have to enjoy their horse buggies, mud huts and candlelit dinners while they wonder what the fuck we were thinking.

    Clearly, that is fucking insane.

    The truly staggering amounts of funds, not to mention technological advances, sucked out of the world’s economies as a result of such a massive Return to the Caves Strategery would buy one HECK of a lot of adaptation to changing temperatures.

    Summa summarum, I maintain that it seems more than a little bit like hubris for us to think that we can destroy the entire planet with our 2.5% share of CO2 emissions, and I maintain that even if we were to quit burning anything at all and starve in the dark, it wouldn’t make a damn difference anyway.

    Some people may think that committing suicide based on a fad and a hypothesis is a smart thing to do, and to them I have this to say: “Please avoid sharp objects, and please don’t procreate. The gene pool is diluted enough as it is.”

  30. Apollyon Comment by Apollyon UNITED STATES

    Our contribution to global warming [which cannot be proven—narcissistic liberal idiots {redundancy} will argue the contrary] is dwarfed by that of volcanic eruptions. I think the liberal idiots [redundancy] should start by capping all volcanoes.

    The earth is getting warmer and it has a lot to do with the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being

    Liberal idiots [redundancy] should do their part in combating global warming by not breathing. ….It would be a win win situation.

  31. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR UNITED STATES

    Once again, the Emperor articulates my precise point in a fraction of the column inches space, that I did.

    If we wish to reduce our emissions to, say, 1%, we’d have to slash the world economy by 60% and then hope that it makes a difference. If not, our kids and grandkids will just have to enjoy their horse buggies, mud huts and candlelit dinners while they wonder what the fuck we were thinking.

    Clearly, that is fucking insane.

    Pardon for the typing error, my poor journalist’s education written language skills are showing…again….

    :help_tb:

    Thanks Boss !!!!

  32. Unregistered Comment by Draven32 UNITED STATES

    The author’s case is very simple. Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Deny it all you want but that doesn’t change a damn thing. The earth is getting warmer and it has a lot to do with the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere. To reiterate, this is a fact. Go live on the moon if it doesn’t suit you.

    Hey Muzzy,

    If you want to show a complete data set, you need to show a chart of MEASURED SOLAR OUTPUT.

    Of course, the priests at the High Temple of Global Warming will probably have a convenient explanation for you to use as to what man is doing to make solar output increase.

    Or, you can just do what most of the scientists you cited are doing, and apply to the various governments for a multimilliondollar grant to research ‘climate change’/'global warming’ and then use an antequated computer model that doesn’t compensate for the capability of seawater (which covers 75% of the Earth’s surface) to retain and radiate heat. Then feed that computer model your tempterature data- or heck, feed it a table of random numbers. The end effect will be the same- the computer model predicts warming.

    Said computer model, when given temperature data from previous years, cannot even predict temperatures we have already experienced. Give it data up until December 31, 1979 and it cannot accurately predict temperatures for the 1980s- it predicts warming that didn’t happen. Add to that the data until 31Dec89, and it predicts warming that did not happen in the 1990s. Add data until 31Dec99, and it still can’t predict the frikken temperature with any degree of accuracy.

    Muzzy, you may be too young to remember this, but I’m not. When I first started school, they were telling us how the Earth was on the cusp of another Ice Age. Not a ‘Little Ice Age’, but a big, glaciers-advancing-down-to-central-Ohio Ice Age. As soon as the prediction switched from Ice Age to catastrophic warming, we were supposed to suddenly forget the whole Ice Age thing. If solar output dips significantly ten years from now, and the temperature goes down by .1 degrees (the smallest temperature change that can be detected on a global scale) are we going to get our money back from these scientists?

    As others have stated, Mars is warming. Solar output is on a measured increase. Maybe CO2 levels have jack to do with it?

  33. Unregistered Comment by charles68 UNITED STATES

    This is interesting.

    It goes without saying that the results shown here depend on the accuracy of the original 33 degree estimate and the validity of extrapolating of the existing curve by an additional increment. However, we can check the plausibility of the IPCC’s result by asking the following question: Instead of 33 degrees, what number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?

    Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking. Even a 5 degree projection predicts current-day temperatures of 41°C (106°F). These results clearly cannot be reconciled with observations.

    I’ll stick with the 750,000 years of data that support the start of a 100,000 year cooling cycle. These cycles have marched in lock step for nearly 1 million years.

    How do the global warming acolytes get around the fact that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases account for a mere 0.28% of greenhouse gases?

  34. Unregistered Comment by Draven32 UNITED STATES

    How do the global warming acolytes get around the fact that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases account for a mere 0.28% of greenhouse gases?

    Hubris.