Charles Krauthammer: 'If Godzilla Appeared on National Mall Gore Would Say It’s Global Warming'
Charles Krauthmammer on Friday said if Godzilla appeared on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Al Gore would blame it on global warming.
Such marvelously happened when the discussion on PBS's "Inside Washington" turned to the nation's crazy weather (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: It’s been a terrible winter. If global warming is the problem, why are we having such a tough winter? Well Al Gore told Gail Collins of the New York Times there’s about a four percent more water vapor in the air now in the atmosphere than there was in the ’70s because of warmer oceans and warmer air, and it returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow. That’s what Al Gore says.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming…
[Laughter]
…because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised.
Krauthammer as usual was spot on.
Consider that last Sunday, climate alarmist extraordinaire Joe Romm blamed the Egypt crisis on global warming.
There's absolutely nothing these zealots won't blame on climate change, and there's nothing they will ever admit refutes it.
Bravo, Charles. Bravo!
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
If I saw saw Godzilla on the mall ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:57am.
I'd think it was Michelle Obama making another "fat" speech!
Only Kraut!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:01pm.
What a beautiful takedown.
Bravo, Dr. Krauthammer.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Credibility
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:02pm.
Charles brings up an interesting question: what would falsify global warming? If we were asking a global warming-ist what would have to happen for him to abandon his belief, what would he say?
I admit, I don't know what he'd answer.
Nothing
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:44pm.
Because it is an irrational belief. Therefore, nothing would possibly entice the warmer to revise his incorrect assessment.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Correct
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:01pm.
Not just that but as "the hammer" put it "its a religion" that doesn't worship the creator but the creation. I would say secular humanism is the religion of choice of most if not all liberals.
Godzilla appeared on the Mall...,
Submitted by CarlosS on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:08pm.
It would probably be ManBearPig mutated by Global Warming, err, Climate Change!
Trapped
Submitted by Huapakechi on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:10pm.
The leaders and high priests of the agw fanatics are trapped by their own propaganda. They've built a huge following on that fraud, and their followers would tear them to pieces if the truth came out. As long as they're riding that tiger, stifling any dissent and countering all opposition with a deafening volume of bafflegab, they're reasonably safe. They may have finally reached the tipping point withthe latest Winter storm to sweep South, being as their policies have blocked energy production to the point that Texas had to impose rolling blackouts.
Texans don't like being cold, and they sure get angry when their power is cut.by "global warming" policies.during the worst cold snap to hit the state since the1800s.
Prosecute Gore
Submitted by AgentAmerican on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:16pm.
I'm hoping the next administration pursues fraud charges on Algore.
The plan didn't come together.
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:15pm.
Hack politicians came out early with the doom and gloom thinking that all the sheep would go along with it instantly. Had that happened in the time of Kyoto, had the policies of tax and cap and regulate happened immediately, today they would be saying how the weather is evidence of their success. They would be saying they stopped the warming with their policies - thus justifying even more of them.
I love the irony in how it is the evolutionists who themselves argue that change is such a bad thing, that it brings eventual doom. Hilarious it is that they do not recognize their own dichotomy. Idiots, the lot of them. They have become so aloof that they really believe they can control everything in the universe and, not only that, but, that they can do so with government taxation and regulation.
Water Vapor? Hmmm. How about those Hydrogen cars......what is their "exaus"t? Oh yeah, water vapor! They have cornered themselves with their own arguments. Steam, hot water, is pollution? We must therefore regulate steam? So the Earth is committing suicide with all its hot springs? And Old Faithful is spewing pollution into the air to the degree we must cap it? Again, idiots, the lot of them.
Sheesh. I am glad CK has the courage to say something direct like this. More should do so.
Climate changes and I will only be worried when it doesn't.
Ashrak
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:02pm.
"I love the irony in how it is the evolutionists who themselves argue that change is such a bad thing, that it brings eventual doom."
Nothing like interjecting meaningless comparisons and mischaracterizing opposing views to undermine your argument.
Because believing that organic systems undergo changes over large time scales and believing that small time scale environmental changes might result in conditions which are detrimental to those organic systems sure is ironic.
Next you'll tell us that these "idiots" don't believe in the occurrence of non-manmade extinction.
If you're not familiar with a
Submitted by Firmworm on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:25pm.
If you're not familiar with a company called Solyndra...read this. And don't forget to pay your taxes.
http://regularguyrant.com/?tag=solar
Wait. Godzilla isn't due to
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:32pm.
Wait. Godzilla isn't due to global warming? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Sarah Palin didn't free King Kong!
Get a grip people, global warming causes everything. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Al Gore's new spokesperson?
Submitted by Firmworm on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:46pm.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ba_1296857530
Hilarious,
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:32pm.
Hilarious, Fireworm!
Thanks.
Wondering
Submitted by Walker01049 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:51pm.
Just wondering if ol' Agore has reduced his carbon footprint lately. Oh, shucks, I forgot. He's an elite one. Different rules than us serfs.
That's what caused it.
Submitted by JJ OKC on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:02pm.
To think it was warming that put us at -36 wind chill this week. For them to admit they are wrong would destroy there whole little liberal world.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
I was having a 'discussion'
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:13pm.
I was having a 'discussion' with a young lib recently - actually, I was toying with his ignorance - and he was talking about 'global warming' and the record colds and snow and ice . I told him that when I was a kid, it was called 'winter'............... and the poor guy looked really bewildered, like that was too 'simple'(?) to be an answer.
With ALGORE and Boy Blunder - we have two of the biggest scams every perpetrated on the WORLD in history..................
Al couldn't even compete in horeshoes or grenades
Submitted by dbo on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:14pm.
22 years ago Al Gore said "Scientists now predect our current course will raise world temperatures five degrees Celsius in our lifetimes. " A generation later he's only about 5.3 degrees celsius (9.5F) off the mark.
I don't think I got a
Submitted by Hunter12 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:15pm.
I don't think I got a response from a warmer when I posted this the other day. Maybe there's more of them online today, since the weather outside sucks so much. Here goes:
It turns out there was a little fraud involved in the claim 2010 was the hottest year ever. There are one or two problems with the claims. Heck, the Globe Warming conspirators are making phony predictions about winter forecasts and causing deaths to hide the decline now. I was going to post a link to another article, but I found these statements to be so compelling, I'm pasting them en Toto from the site:
In a policy paper entitled Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?, published in August 2010 by the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI), D'Aleo and Watts write:
Around 1990, NOAA/NCDC's GHCN dataset lost more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. It can be shown that country by country, they lost stations with a bias towards higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
The remaining climate monitoring stations were increasingly near the sea, at lower elevations, and at airports near larger cities. This data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same often colder stations that have been deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature in the base periods, further increasing the potential bias towards overstatement of the warming.
To make sure the reader did not miss this astounding point, we reiterate and emphasize: More than 75 percent of the weather stations around the globe have been inexplicably "lost."
And it just so happens, that most of the "lost" weather stations happen to be, conveniently, ones from the colder areas — from the higher altitudes, the higher latitudes, and rural areas — providing an automatic exaggerated temperature rise that more than accounts for the reported "global warming" of recent decades.
Are there any AGW believers out there that would care to refute my cut-and-paste? Your side has dropped actual monitoring of 75% of the weather stations, fudged the remaining data, and is claiming GW while we're up to our arses in snow in places we haven't had it in decades. Guess we're supposed to take their findings on faith while they profit from carbon credit sales and research grants and go laughing all the way to the bank, salving their consciences with our money.
[Yes, I did save this to post until I get a response or in response to the AGW BS you see from the true believers.]
I think the links above prove that "Global Warming" is manmade, but the planet itself isn't really getting hotter.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
That, sir, would make a fine tag line.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:52pm.
Global Warming IS manmade, but the planet itself isn't getting any hotter.
Sweet.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Read a similar article years ago.
Submitted by stunned on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:34pm.
The fall of the Soviet Union led to huge cuts in the meteorology stations and monitoring equipment in Siberia and other northern areas of Russia and the former states ie: Estonia, Latvia ect. These stations went offline after 1989-1990 and voila the world heated up. Only by comparing the active stations after 1990 to the same stations before 1990 could you get an accurate avg world temp.
Well I read a study was done sometime after 1998 though I can't find in on the net now that said if you eliminated the closed stations from the data there was no global warming. Of course it was disregarded and we jumped the shark on global warming
tired of liberal lies
Oh no, they say he's got to
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:25pm.
Oh no, they say he's got to go go go Gorezilla
Oh no, there goes AGW go go Gorezilla
History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
Wow who knew that BOC was so precient. They're describing ManBearPig to a T!!!!!!
Imagine if...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:33pm.
Imagine if we were having the driest, warmest winter in memory - that would be cited as evidence forGlobal Warming too. Anytime a hypothesis is claimed to be proven by both X and by not-X, something is very flawed with the hypothesis, and its supporters.
I hope no one finds the lack
Submitted by Skragnon on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:52pm.
I hope no one finds the lack of critical thinking being taught in our primary and secondary schools as a shock.
Without some form of critical thinking it is possible to believe both the true and false conclusions of a statement at the same time.
To pose the question never answered again:
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:39pm.
There have been 7 ice ages. That's 7 times the earth has transitioned from cold to hot and back. All this before man walked this planet and burned his first piece of coal.
So please explain. How now is climate fluctuation due to man?
Crickets please.
Causian Chinese Mummy
Submitted by pockets64 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:19pm.
I was just reading the thread on the caucasian Chinese mummy. Some reader claimed this was proof that there have been multiple rises/catastrophes of civilization throughout Earth's history. The catastrophes have been so great as to reduce mankind to a few primitive pockets.
Well, these past ice ages and regression of ice ages are further proof of this theory. There is no other way for the ice ages to have gone away.
/sarc
Climate Change Is Nature At Work
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:50pm.
Kudos to Krauthammer!
Severe and rapid climate change has happened to the earth multiple times without the benefit of any human produced carbon. A prime example: mammoths frozen in the tundra of Siberia and Alaska with undigested food in their stomachs. That's severe climate change. Where I am sitting in the Midwest was a wall of ice a mile hgh that extended all the way to the north Pole about 15,000 years ago. That's pretty severe global warming to melt that ice. From around 1150 - 1350 AD, there was a drought that severly disrupted Indian civilization in North America. Last I checked, American Indians did not burn fossil fuels.
In late 1815, Mount Tambora in Indonesia produced the worst volcanic eruption in recorded history. Combined with a lack of solar surface acitivty, 1816 became known as "the year without a summer." Global cooling was followed by collapse of agriculture and snow fell as late as June in parts of the country. Could you imagine what a weather event on the scale of the mammoth extinction or 1816 would do to our civilizations? Al Gore's scenarios of temperature going up a half degree seem silly in comparison. And these events happened without any human carbon footprint. The point is, there is obviously much, much more to be considered in any SERIOUS climate discussion than just blaming human industry.
That's another thing, the Church of Climate Change seems determined to exclude from their Apostle's creed the nuclear reactor parked 90 million miles from our planet. Reversal of the earth's magnetic poles may be another factor which is ommitted in the Church's doctrine. I'm all for a clean earth and responsible environmental stewardship,. but I'm tired of the concept being hijacked by anti-American and socialist loons.
Thunder Lizard
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:05pm.
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-documented post. I'm still undecided on climate change. In school I was a good science student, but frankly I find many of the arguments too complex to follow.
I do wish there were some way to de-politicize this issue. Often the discussion centers on issues such as "Is Al Gore a hypocrite or just an idiot?" The universe cares little about Al Gore.
Also I note that the climate change skeptics (I use the term in a non-pejorative way) are a heterogeneous group. Many, like yourself, cite evidence that climate changes due to powerful forces of nature, and that the impact of humans is negligible. Others believe it simply won't happen. Some go so far as to suggest the existence of a conspiracy. (If I understand correctly, some see the culprits of greedy entrepreneurs, hoping to get rich by selling environmentally friendly products; others blame left wing radicals intent on limiting our freedoms, with the ultimate aim of global domination.) Then there are those who believe that none of it matters, because the world will come to an end next year; and those who argue, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is there so much snow in my driveway?"
But I digress. Thunder Lizard, I understand that you are skeptical of "man-made" climate change, and you make your case well. From the evidence that you have seen, do you believe that, in the not-so-distant future, big climate changes will occur? If mankind lacks the power to change the climate, do we at least have the ability to forecast a global climate crisis? If so, we should be trying to figure out how to prepare for the coming environmental changes.
The "cure" for climate
Submitted by MikeB on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:26pm.
The "cure" for climate change is simple. During the middle to late 70's, the cause du jour was global cooling. The planet was cooling at an alarming rate, and an ice age was imminent. The recommendation to deal with the crisis? Simple: shut down the U.S. economy.
Now, the crisis is global warming, and the planet is going to burn up with a "fever". The recommendation to deal with the "crisis" is once again to shut down the U.S. economy. Do you notice the commonality in the two problems?
If you need any more proof of the politicization of climate change, do searches using the phrazes, "global warming Pluto", "global warming Mars", "global warming Titan", "global warming Saturn". All of the planetary bodies and moons in the solar system have been warming, but I doubt seriously that the U.S. has exported the idustrial revolution and SUVs to the other plantes. Therefore, if there is warming going on throughout the solar system, it must be another cause than human beings ... perhaps that small star in the middle of the system?
If you have an open mind on the subject, also check out Ponder the Maunder at http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html
Girding our loins for climate change
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:25pm.
Has nothing to do with government limiting freedom by regulating CO2.
Have you ever wondered why CO2, an irrelevant gas as far as greenhouse effect is concerned, was chosen as the evil force begind global warming? Could it be that they haven't found a way to tax water vapor yet?
regulating CO2
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:46pm.
can we regulate CO2 at MSNBC?
Can we also figure out why the government is shutting down effecient privately owned incinerators while giving a pass to mass burners that pollute far more per pound and have a greater risk factor?
Yutsnark
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:34pm.
Thanks for your kind remarks. I'm a bit of skeptic in many issues, precisley because they get so politicized we can no longer rationally discuss the pros and cons of any evidence. I was part of the environmental movement back in the 70s. I still consider myself an environmentalist but as I got older, I could see more clearly that a significant number of leaders were embracing Marxist rhetoric, readily damning the US while giving the then Soviet Bloc, China, et al a "pass" on environmental issues. Once the Iron Curtain came down we learned just how devastating to the environment these worker's paradises really were. I've not been to any of these nations, but friends and relatives who have, saw things that would bring criminal prosecution in this country. Maybe I'm digressing here.
There is no point in us being "dirty" when we have the technology to be clean, as long as it does not bankrupt us in the process. We can't just slam on the brakes on fossil fuels and lock up the country for technologies that are as yet undevleoped or are still uneconomical. If we cry now about the unemployment rate, the misery index, inflation, deficits, etc., slamming the brakes on oil and coal without a viable, economic alternative in place will really give us something to cry about. As for climate change, I did not completely close the door that human activity may have some effect. I have a background in history and science, and so many times, I've seen today's "facts" get overturned by new revelations or so caught up in its own rhetoric that evidence to the contrary cannot even be discussed. In effect, it becomes religous dogma. I see that in many who adhere to the global warming position. Likewise, I think it foolish of those on the right who think we can churn ahead with unbridled resource consumption and development. We have a right to use resources, we are part of the planet, but we also have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. There has to be some kind of balance.
One of hte point is was trying to make, is that while our knowedge base expands exponentially there is a still a lot about the natural world and the universe that we don't fully understand. What caused the mammoths to freeze? Why did the continental ice sheets expand and contract at least seven times? I've learned many times, when you hear scientists make absolute pronouncements, they are often working on theory not established fact. Maybe well researched theory but it is still theory nontheless. So when somone says "Shut up, the debate is over" or they open up with "Every intelligent person knows" then my radar goes off. I don't know how well we can prepare for disasters whether they be natural or manmade. Humans have a tendancy to wait until the last moment, or to simply play the odds. I think in part, that is why some climatological issues seem worse; we have a lot of people living in areas that were previously had minimal occupation and are susceptable to disasters (coastal areas, fault lines, riparian valleys) and 24/7 instant news coverage. We hear about disasters now that when I was a kid, would only make the back page of the paper two weeks after they were over.
My two cents anyway.
Flawed Business Plan
Submitted by Harbour11 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:23pm.
It is an undisputable fact that it is impossible to scientifically and quantitatively prove CO2's role (if any) in altering global temperature. The reason is very simple, and most of us learned it in the 4th grade; that being that you cannot derive an answer to a 4th decimal place, when the variables used in the calculation only had 2 decimal places. In other words, every global warming model requires incredible precision because of the timeframes involved are extrapolated out great distances. Even the slightest miscalculation in any of the variables would grow into a tremendous error as the model is pushed outward over decades and centuries.
Our lack of even the most basic comprehension of the other significant variables; atmospheric moisture, volcanic activity, solar influences, oceanic currents, cloud cover, ice coverage, human development, etc, their level of impact, their cycles, how they interact with each other and dynamically change when other variables change, and what they were in the past, are now, and what they will be in the future, would prohibit the isolation and backing-out of CO2 as a variable.
Any of these “consensus” scientists, cannot with a straight face state that the scientific community has even a basic understanding of these systems. If they think we understand them sufficiantly, ask them how many massive volcanic eruptions the earth is going to sustain in the next 50 years. Or you can ask them if the global temperature increases, how much more or less cloud cover will exist, and how much of a countering impact on temperture will it impact. Better yet, ask them how we could quantitativlely caculate the historical global cloud coverage before the invention of observation satellites?
As such, the current alternative energy model, which requires proof of anthropogenic global warming to justify the artificial increase in hydrocarbon costs, is fundamentally flawed. Climategate was the manifestation of the frustration of the proponents to prove that which cannot be proven. When their model started to fail (as they all will with time), Jones and Mann had to “hide the decline.”
The raw data they
Submitted by Hunter12 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:57pm.
The raw data they extrapolated from doesn't have an increase in it. They had to model the increase into their findings(look at my last link below). One of the question the Russuian were asking during the climategate fiasco was, why were their weather stations good enough to be included in the baseline calculation from the 70s and 80s but no longer included in the recordings of today's temperatures? I no longer believe in global warming period, let alone AGW. You can't say the world is getting hotter just because the only readings you include come from warm places or weather stations in the middle of man-made heat islands. Here's further analysis of the year 2010 from someone who is not a koolaid drinker. I really must get the CRU's recipe for fudge.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Pascal's Wager
Submitted by pockets64 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:33pm.
When you do corner them on the flaws in their theory, they always resort to "but what if it is true? We can't risk our children's future!"
pockets
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:49pm.
Is it the scientists who use that rebuttal? I thought it was mostly lay people.
Gosh, I thought it was libtards like you, yut.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:52pm.
Why are you asking such a stupid question?
Is that all that occurs to you?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Pipe down, Blonde
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:04pm.
Obviously you don't know the answer.
→ Snark
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:12pm.
Most recently the scientists' answer was that they lost the raw data.
Those meticulous scientists.
Some data
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:06pm.
I work on a project with dozens of Universities working in unison. First thing you do when you collect data is proliferate it. There isnt any loosing it, if it gets lost, so do a lot of people! We are doing unique work, and are very careful what gets published about it. It is called integrity. We even have a group dedicated to making false very deliberate signals, just to make sure we can tell the difference.
Edit, I mean this as contrast to the Global warming data collectors, most of whom get federal funding.
I hope you're not the spell checker
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:08am.
Looser!
That really is an interesting
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:41pm.
That really is an interesting question and I think I will try that next time I'm in a debate with one of these Global Warming zealots. You can present a warmer with all sorts of inconvienent truths, but their minds are so closed it doesn't impact them. This approach is unique in that it actually forces them to think.
If a Global Warmer asked me "what would it take for you to believe it's real?" I could easily answer it. I would need to see the following:
1) Climatologists must stop running from open debates. If it ain't open to review then it ain't science.
2) A climatologist's study on AGW funded by the government has the integrity of a doctor's study on cigarettes funded by Philip Morris. I want to see real scientists without a government funding connection advocating this just as strongly as a government-funded one.
3) Its proponents would need to practice what they preach. It's hard to take these people seriously as they fly around in private jets to attend conferences on the effects of CO2 on AGW. Have these forward-thinking progressives never heard of Go-To Meeting.com?
4) Before AGW zealots turned everything into sign of Global Warming they had several predictions and I want them to come true. I want to see the poles lose their ice. I want to see the oceans rise by several feet. I want to see the heartland of North America turning to desert. All of that was predicted and I want to see it happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
<blockquote>Well Al Gore told
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:47pm.
<blockquote>Well Al Gore told Gail Collins of the New York Times there’s about a four percent more water vapor in the air now in the atmosphere than there was in the ’70s because of warmer oceans and warmer air, and it returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow.</blockquote>
Someone needs to ask why Global Warming was supposed to bring drought but is now supposed to bring extra precipitation.
This specific issue was one of the things I read about 11 or 12 years ago in a document challenging AGW. At the time the AGW fundamentalists were predicting widespread droughts but the article mentioned that warmer air would hold more moisture and would actually bring us more precipitation. Of course, the reason they made this claim was to scare people into thinking they wouldn't be able to eat. It's nice to see that the AGW zealots figured out a way to scare people with increased precipitation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Investments is why al is a zealot.Must resurrect carbon,.must r.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:08pm.
h/t Noel...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care
That was then, this is now.... U.S Carbon Trading not worth a plug nickel $500 billion trading thin air? Sure, yep, you betcha. Do you think there will be any confidence in buying carbon offsets directly when the free market runs from carbon trading like they are vacating a burning house? Now you know why, there are the warmers, crying from the roof tops... It's all about making money, like the tulip craze. The amount the market declined from peak to bottom: This number is difficult to calculate, but, we can tell you that at the peak of the market, a person could trade a single tulip for an entire estate, and, at the bottom, one tulip was the price of a common onion.EDIT: It's dead Jim...
You Didn't Build That.
And Then
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:16pm.
Obama would bow down before Godzilla (he is Asian after all).
Medieval Warm Period
Submitted by phryingphish on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:54pm.
I have listened to Algore and have asked this question over and over:
If global warming causes more severe and frequent snowfall, why didn't we have records of the severe and frequent snowfall during the Medieval Warm period? Temperatures were equal to todays (Without industrialization).
I believe in (Michael E.) Mann Made Global Warming!
Religion
Submitted by Cyborg 0427 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:33pm.
These people believe this lunicy as a religion. Just like nothing could sway me from my faith in God, nothing could sway them from their faith in themselves. They with their whole heart believe that they can fix this imagined problem. The fact that there have been several ice ages to them is totally beside the point. They probably think that had they just been there they could have stopped the ice ages of the past.
Many have said that Obama is a muslim. To me I see a man who recognises no God higher than him self. He may or may not use muslims, christians, secular humanist, or any other group for that matter to achieve his ends. Opra among others have taught these liberals that they can find their own path to whatever they feel God is to them. In other words they have made god in their own image. I have listened to liberal friends give all the empty arguements like the one true God could not limit himself to one book, that He will accept you for who you are, you must find your own path, He made me the way I am and loves me for who I am, when God says that to follow him is the same as becoming an absolutely new creature. One dedicated to a higher power than themselves. Therefore the whole climate change/ global warming arugement goes in the face of a God who is in control because to them, they are in control not God.
Which is more scary?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:04pm.
Which is scarier? A Muslim with NPD or someone with NPD? They are both scary, but a Muslim with NPD would be scarier.
You say many have said he is a Muslim, butif you look at his past actions, as well as understanding the "ideals" behind being a Muslim as well as his comments, there's NO question he's a Muslim. Any time he declares otherwise is part of taqiya which he practices a lot of, sometimes with the help of a teleprompter or his apologists(who seem to be disappearing). Otherwise, any time he's off script, his comments scream "I'm a Muslim!" Here's one clue: They have absolutely NO value in life. That's why he would rather give Grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker.(He said this to a reporter)
He's identified with the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Flash back to Iran 2009 where the Christians and others were trying to rise up against Iran's circle of fiends ruling that country. Did he try to help the protesters in Iran? Nope! Did he call for the ouster of Iran's ruling class? Nope! But he did call for a "transition" in Egypt who was a steadfast ally of the US and Israel. Egypt accuses DuhOne of being a Manchurian Candidate because of this. Israel says they've been betrayed by the US(or at least betrayed by the Chairman, which isn't too hard to believe).
Look at the facts and his past actions and you will get more than just "many have said...." All the above are a matter of record. All the above is about religion, so to speak. One wants to kill you, the other one wants to break you(the global warming religion).
-Jon
He may be a Christian
Submitted by pockets64 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:13pm.
I'm in no position to say which horse he rides here. But, I can say that his man was raised by a Muslim and spent his formative years in a Muslim school in a Muslim country. We all orbit towards our childhood faith. We hold a romantic fondness for it. Even Satinists still hold their Christian backgrounds in a special place in their hearts, otherwise they would be worshipping the anti-Budda, not the anti-Christ.
So, he's a Muslim-sympathising whatever-he-is. (My money is on "Socialist:)
Godzilla - Tree Hugger
Submitted by forest on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:39pm.
Godzilla saves the earth from the Smog Monster (Hedorah).
Seem Him
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:56pm.
Smog Monster Hedorah has a vacation home in LA. I saw him once by Grauman's Chinese Theater talking to a guy wearing tinfoil and a TV antenna while pushing a shopping cart filled with who knows what.
OK. Maybe I didn't see Hedorah, but the rest is true. Hollyweird got it's name for a reason.
Godzilla
Submitted by fatboy on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:44pm.
Magnificent Charles...as usual.
He missed an opportunity w/the AZ shooting
Submitted by Trochilus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:13pm.
Al Gore and his libs and progs did not blame the shooting in AZ on global warming or climate change, possibly because many of them had already blamed it on Sarah Palin and her political targeting posts at her website. Al just wasn't quick enough on that one! You snooze you lose, Al!
Al Gore's and the Left's Hoax
Submitted by cbeyer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:31pm.
The proponents of so called ‘man made’ global warming never cease to amaze. December 2010, January and February 2011 are on their way to being the coldest in many years and the outlook for the balance of the winter is more of the same. Coldest days and weeks on record are occurring in Europe and North America. Yet, several UN scientists and global warming alarmists predicted that 2010 would be one of the warmest years on record.
The humorous part of all is that no matter what weather patterns occur; global warming/climate change alarmists claim that all of them point to catastrophic conditions caused by the devastating impact of industrialization and the human population on earth. When Hurricane Katrina occurred as the result of an extremely active hurricane season in 2005, some climatologists claimed with great certainty that due to man made global warming calamitous hurricane activity would occur for years to come. Those predictions, like many others have simply not proven correct.
With falsified weather records by UN climatologists deliberately altered to ‘fit’ a scientific hypothesis designed to serve as the basis of a major transfer of wealth to less developed countries, the motivation for global warming hysteria has been unmasked. The ‘carbon footprint’ myth has been successfully used by enterprising hucksters such as Al Gore to become obscenely wealthy promoting the need to purchase ‘carbon credits’.
Is the world experiencing global warming? No one can say with certainty given the fact that highly specific and accurately recorded weather patterns and records have only been kept for over a hundred years. This for a planet that is over four billion years old! We know the earth has experienced short and long term periods of cooling and warming. Many scientists believe that the real source of climate change relates to sun spot activity.
No one has the real answers to the question of recent global weather patterns and what causes them. One thing is for certain….creating all new a governmental entity to capitalize on a climate theory that remains highly controversial and tainted with unfounded theories and claims has nothing to do with climate change. It’s all about wealth transfer from America to recipient’s third world countries blessed by the United Nations.
Copyright by The Right of Way Pundit
February 2011
finally after all these years
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:30pm.
Now I know who shot JFK.
Booosh shot JFK.
He did it because of Sarah Palin's extreme rhetoric.
She got all evil and crotchety because the weather is so damnably hot.
It got so hot because of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
GLOBAL WARMING MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE MORE ARE KILLED!!!
LOL wizardjr
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:44pm.
That was so funny. I am still laughing.
Liberal Proglodytes are as Earth-centered as Ptolemaic Astronomy
Submitted by daveinboca on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:41am.
Al Gore reminds you of the pre-Copernican astronomers that thought the sun went around the earth, as the entire universe focused on the tiny inhabitants of this planet, which was redeemed by God's son. The libtard religion is centered on humanist BS, as the morons in the leftist BolshieSphere allow no higher power than their own egos, puffed up with grandiosity and false pride. They are truly victims of borderline personality disorders, period.
Copernicus noted that the earth revolves around the Sun, which with sunspots and variations in other ways changes the earth's climate at a ratio of about one million percent for every percent humans change it. Scientists have been following sunspots and noting their effect on earth's weather and long-term climate since the 17th c., namely the "Little Ice Age" when there were barely any sunspots for one hundred and fifty years.. And the Essex School of faked statistics has now been hacked open, much to the chagrin of Nancy Pee-loosely and her henchtroll, Bobo Boxer, who called for prosecuting the truthtelling e-mail hacker. The NYT refused to print the e-mails because they were hacked illegally, yet gleefully filled their pages a year later with hacked wikileaks classified US docs from working-class hero Assange.
If the left didn't have a double standard, it would have no standards at all...!
Just a few things...
Submitted by PlatZ on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:23am.
First and foremost: The (maybe) complete list of everything that has already been blamed on 'Global Warming' or predicted as a result thereof. (Note: A number of the items on the list are mutually exclusive.) http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm I love how 'Global Warming' is supposed to make beer better AND make beer worse, among other things. (The article also references this list.)
Second: I am extremely skeptical on the whole 'Global Warming' concept, as far as the notion that it is really happening. I am even more skeptical of the notion that man is somehow causing it. I get frustrated with the unmitigated arrogance required to believe that we somehow have the ability to have a huge impact on the climate of this planet or the ability to save/destroy it. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for being responsible in our environment as good stewards, but feel-good actions that have no real results have no place in that. There is also a big difference between having a planet that has more litter and pollution than we want and having a planet that is destroyed by our actions. We cannot even accurately predict the weather with any degree of certainty, especially beyond a day or two, and you expect me to believe that we can CONTROL the climate?
Third: Piggy-back on that is the arrogance of the notion that we can predict the future climate/climate change. The priests of global warming love climate models and charts and graphs. There is just a few problems with that. To make their charts/models/graphs/etc, they cherry pick data. They do not use all the available data, they pick and choose data that meets what they already believe. Additionally, they extrapolate. Any engineer can tell you that when you extrapolate, you always get it wrong. (Interpolation is usually pretty good, extrapolation always generates errors, at least in the real world.) So they use flawed data and a faulty system to create a model to predict what will happen. Is anyone surprised that they have NEVER had a model that accurately predicted anything? Believers in man-made or man-affected climate change (to allow for both global warming and global cooling alarmists) have been trying to make predictions about the future climate for as long as they have existed. Every single one of these predictions has failed to come true. I don't know about you, but I believe that the predictions of someone with a 100% failure rate should not be treated as a legitimate basis for policy, public opinion, or content in the educational system.
Side note: The priests of global warming love to point to how active our hurricane seasons are, among other things, as their proof. I find that interestingly ignorant for two reasons. First, there is exactly one person that knows hurricanes well enough to have a decent track record in prediction numbers and severity for any upcoming storm season. (I've read some of his work, but sadly, I forget his name now.) What does the guy that knows hurricanes best say about global warming? He says that if we really are seeing global warming, it will result in FEWER and MILDER hurricanes. Second, the notion that our storm seasons are significantly more active is more than a little misleading. Every year sees some variation from the year before as far as storms goes, but that isn't even what I'm talking about. Storm-sensing and tracking technology has improved exponentially in the past 20 years, maybe even longer. We also have more classifications that we track than used to be considered worth reporting. (Did anyone really care, twenty years ago, about a 'tropical depression' that was unlikely to make landfall?) As our sensing and tracking technology has improved, and our classifications have become more numerous and, in some cases, detailed, we have naturally observed more storm activity. This is not because there are significantly more storms. It is because we are now paying attention to storms that we didn't care about or notice twenty or thirty years ago.
Anyway, as soon as someone actually shows unaltered, undoctored, and indisputable evidence that the planet is actually warming, that it is the result of things that humans are doing, and that there is something we can do about it, THEN I will start believing in global warming. So long as open discussion is suppressed, sensationalism wins out over facts, data gets subjectively selected or ignored to support their argument, and all climate predictions fail to come true, I will not be a follower of the cult of global warming (AGW, manmade climate change, etc.)
P.S. Someone commented on how critics of the notion of AGW seem to always characterize Gore as either dumb or a liar. (At least I think it was something to that effect. Hypocrite may have been in there somewhere, too.) I just wanted to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive.
'If Godzilla Appeared on the National Mall...
Submitted by Army Brat on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:27am.
of course Gore would say it was Global Warming. He alteady points to all things great and small as proof of Manbearpig. Godzilla would fit right in.