Pity the poor global warming alarmists such as Al Gore, James Hansen of NASA, and the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen. They went way out on the limb in promoting the absolute certainity of global warming and now Mother Nature is sawing it off behind them with the coldest weather in decades. To spare themselves complete embarrassment, you might have noticed that many media outlets and global warming promoters are backing off from that term and are now using "climate change" more frequently. Last Friday, one of the big global warming promoters on the Huffington Post, Kevin Grandia, publicly struggled over whether to replace the older phrase with "climate change":
Is it more appropriate to use the term "global warming" or "climate change"?
Of course, like anything, it's complicated. For a bit of history lesson on the terms there is a great post on the NASA Global Climate Change blog.
Hmmm... Does it sound to you like Grandia is backing away from the term "global warming?" It sure does to your humble correspondent. However, Grandia can't quite give up the global warming ghost although he seems to be now making moves in that direction:
So the question is this: When writing or commenting online do you use the technically correct term or the one that will likely garner you the most visits?
Ask a public opinion researcher and they'll say use "global warming" all the time. Ask a scientist or policy wonk and they'll no doubt recommend the appropriate technical use.
I tend towards using the term global warming. But I am torn between being technically correct and getting the most eye-balls on a story.
So what do you think the answer is?
For many in the media the answer is to use "climate change" with greater frequency. In fact, it wouldn't be at all surprising if the Huffington Post renames its Global Warming page to "Climate Change" to spare themselves further humiliation as the climate continues cooling. In fact, this cooling trend is becoming so noticeable that we may soon face a new problem: global cooling alarmism. Yes, the alarm bells already are beginning to shift in the direction of global cooling as you can see in this article in The Australian:
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
...using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century. Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown.
Yet in spite of this, governments across the world - egged on by irrational, deep Green lobbying - have for years been using their financial muscle and other powers of persuasion to introduce carbon dioxide taxation systems. For example, the federal Labor government recently spent $13.9 million on climate change advertising on prime time television and in national newspapers and magazines.
...Introduction of a carbon dioxide tax to prevent (imaginary) warming, euphemistically disguised as an emissions trading scheme, is a politician's, ticket clipper's and mafia chief's dream. All will welcome a new source of income based on an invisible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and often unmeasurable gas. No commodity changes hands during its trading, and should carbon dioxide emissions actually decrease because of the existence of a carbon dioxide market (which is highly unlikely), the odds are that it will have no measurable effect on climate anyway. Nonetheless, the glistening pot of gold which beckons to be mined from the innocent public is proving nigh irresistible, and it is going to need a strong taxpayer revolt to stop it in Australia.
The present global financial crisis should be inducing politicians not to squander money on non-solutions to non-problems. Yet to support their plans for emissions taxation Western governments, including ours, are still propagating scientifically juvenile greenhouse propaganda underpinned only by circumstantial evidence and GCM computer gamesmanship.
Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world's granary belts.
Note to the Australian and Pravda which also warned of this new threat: Don't fall prey to global cooling alarmism such as happened in the 1970s when Newsweek featured that dire problem on its magazine cover.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
ALGores Fire Breathing speech...no CHANGE in Global warming
January 19, 2009 - 10:06 ET by CapeCodScottGraphic
www.ScottOnCapeCod.com
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"... until they get fed-up enough to finally say something about it!
How About This One
January 19, 2009 - 11:56 ET by considerthisAlong the same lines of thought: editorial cartoon
January
January 19, 2009 - 10:08 ET by notonmywatch"Are We Entering Era of Global Cooling Alarmism?"
yep. we get one every January
Help!
January 19, 2009 - 10:17 ET by okiehawk44I tell my patient that he must stop eating anything but oatmeal because he has stomach cancer, and then it's a nevermind as I misdiagnosed him and he has a headache caused by too tight a hat.
It's all OK though because "something" was wrong with him and I'll throw darts at it until I get it right, and I'll charge him for each and every visit too.
Did I get this scenario right all you AGW alarmists?
Ditto
January 19, 2009 - 10:55 ET by jed58Keep changing the goal post and for sure you are going to hit something in time and can shout "I knew it all along"
→ Stupid peasant tricks
January 19, 2009 - 10:20 ET by Cool ArrowWe've shouted this for a long time
Predicted this switcheroo for a long time
And the American people lap it up like hungry puppies.
Just wait until they call it "Ecological Change". Hungry puppies love Captain Planet.
Climate Change
January 19, 2009 - 10:27 ET by P.J. GladnickClimate Change is merely the way station on the road to Global Cooling. It's too much of a shift for Global Warming Alarmists to go directly to Global Cooling Alarmism so "Climate Change" serves as the the convenient neutral term before going to Global Cooling Alarmism.
→ PJ
January 19, 2009 - 10:39 ET by Cool ArrowLooks to me like a bunch of kids who paid attention in Science Class back in the '70s and 80s. They're playing "Revenge of the Nerds" on all the party kids.
I like this new term
January 19, 2009 - 10:22 ET by dduckw0rthI like this new term they're desparately starting to toss around. Global who? Global warming is too specific. Climate Change on the other hand... pretty hard to prove that wrong. Whenever there's ambiguity, there's often a liberal.
Global warming = science you can shovel
http://www.dduckworth.net/media/4065/global%20warming_500x748.jpg
///The people have spoken!/// INDEED. Slightly over half don't have a CLUE what they spoke for. Enjoy the process as these people slowly get CLUES over a 4yr period.
I think the alarmists should
January 19, 2009 - 10:31 ET by dboI think the alarmists should just be honest with themselves and call it the "manufacture anything you can to scare the living bejesus out of little children" movement.
Colder winters above 35 latitude
January 19, 2009 - 10:31 ET by nwahsColder winters above 35 deg latitude are consistent with global warming. Why? Because of heat transfer and ocean currents. Now, PJ, how are the winters doing below 35 degrees lat? That's where the interesting stuff is. Hows that going?
It's been unusually cold
January 19, 2009 - 10:45 ET by DarkCurrentIt's been unusually cold here in Shanghai (31 N) these last two winters, and no hotter in the summer than I remember from my first visit in '90. But these are poorly documented anecdotes. Why don't you tell us what the totality of data says?
And more about the "heat transfer and ocean currents" as well if you could.
Well, in the Southern
January 19, 2009 - 11:18 ET by dscottWell, in the Southern Hemisphere there has been no global warming at all for 30 years. Only in the Northern Hemisphere was there a warming so Global Warming was always a farce using statistics. Averaging the North and South together gives you the Global Average Temperature (GAT). Who are the two biggest liars? Politicians and Statistics.
So claiming colder winters above 35 deg latitude and warmer temps below 35 deg proves AGW is just another mathematical farce.
The whole point of AGW and their Green solutions is to line the pockets of profiteers like Al Gore and give politicians some nebulous problem to solve and get credit for it. You watch, there will be a couple of years of silence like last time and then once the libs figure out how to promote a scare and profit from it. They will all come out backing the next Ice Age is at hand and WE MUST DO SOMETHING! How will they pull this off??? If libs have been successful at bamboozling a gullible public using statistics they can pull that one off as well. Here's my guess at the tactic they will pull, first they will say rising CO2 has destabilized the climate system with chaotic switches, then claim we still have to lower CO2 to get it below tipping point. Some lib "scientist" (activist like Hansen) will dream up some BS flimflam why this is so and then create a computer model to reproduce those results. Computers can't be wrong, can they? So a gullible public will then buy into that because since when is a computer calculating an equation prone to error? In Geometry we call this a false proof, start with a false assumption (assertion), apply flawless logic and end up with a flawless false conclusion. In liberal belief systems, the conclusion is supported by the strict discipline of logical thought premised by the assertion. In conservative thought we call this the basis of circular reasoning.
What harm is there in doing something????? especially when doing nothing means you could have prevented it no matter how unlikely it was to succeed or occur. Leadership is demonstrated in leading the charge, it matters not which direction everyone is goaded into running, the point is they listened to the leader. The point of power is to exercise it and money greases the wheels of power. btw- the harm is in misallocating capital flow which disadvantages those who normally would have benefited by it if no meddling had occurred. Usually it's the poor who get the shaft because they are too easily fooled, why do you think con artists prey upon the poor so much?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Carbon taxes, etc.
January 19, 2009 - 11:59 ET by SouthernRootsIn 2008, politicians in Washington State proposed taxes designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Over a ten year period, the increased taxes would have been over $240 billion ($24 billion a year average). Our current, deficit infested, budget is about $32 billion a year. So, over ten years, some politicians were happy, in the name of fighting "global warming/climate change, to increase taxation 75%. This increased taxation didn't address anything else, like schools, health, roads, parks, etc.
Increased gas taxes, engine displacement taxes, mileage taxes, energy taxes, etc. Of course, we wouldn't have gotten much back from the government, but we sure would have felt better.....
Fortunately, these laws didn't pass - this time.
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)
They can't give up the mantra that the planet's warming
January 19, 2009 - 12:24 ET by RoverThey've been pushing man-made global warming for nearly 20 years. I don't think they'll be able to get away with an about-face and start making dire predictions about an oncoming ice age that requires us to cough up money, freedom, national soverignty, etc. to "fix" it.
I predict they'll move in two directions.
1. Start yammering about how the climate is a very complex thing, and AGW will result in some cooling, drying climates and moistening ones, more storms and fewer, all depending on where you are and in an unpredictable way. The movie Day After Tommorow is a good example of the antics that they've already started to pull. Note that, in their argument, man's actions are still the cause of the problem, just that the results are not predictable, but whatever it is, it will be BAD and we need to offset carbon emissions. And anything that DOES happen will be taken by them as confirmation.
2. They'll argue that, overall, global warming will be a three-step-forward, two-step-back thing, so a few years of cooling does not disprove the theory. Again, they will argue that BAD things will happen if we don't reduce carbon emissions. And I predict that the first time we have an up year in global temperatures, they'll start to make intimations again, and when we have two in a row, or three out of two, they'll really try to ignite the hysteria again.
I don't think we'll have substantial global cooling alarmism for decades; not ever, in fact, since the planet's been warming since the end of the last ice age, and substantially since the 14th century, and I don't think the cooling trend of the last few years will last long enough to give anyone enough data to really begin to scare anyone about COOLING. (Note, yes I believe in global warming OVERALL, as measured over centuries, just not that man's actions have any measurable effect on it and I don't accept the RATE at which the alarmists claim it will aceelerate. That means I don't belive we have any means of controlling it, but it would not be a bad idea to study means of dealing with the results.)
Rover
Rover
January 20, 2009 - 00:18 ET by nofate"...since the planet's been warming since the end of the last ice age, and substantially since the 14th century..."
Actually, no. If you will take a look at these two graphs, (1), (2) (use the one labeled "Global Temperatures for the last 425,000,000 years) (h/t E7-2521 here), you will see that from two ice core samples taken over 11,000 miles apart in Greenland and Antarctica, that the Earth has warm periods of about 5,000 to maybe 20,000 years, in between ice ages of 90,000 to 100,000 years. Note that we are probably overdue for another ice age. Aside from that, we are about 12,000 years or so into this current warm period and it is not exactly true that we have "been warming since the end of the last ice age". Earth has experienced cycles that show up in proxy data such as ice cores, coral cores, ocean floor cores, etc. (Tree rings have been shown to be unreliable in some (many) cases.) These cores show strong correlation of the temperature cycles over many thousands of years. Greenland used to be a garden due to the warm temperatures of the 1000 A.D. era known as the Midieval warm period. But then the earth cooled during the 1300 to 1700 era known as the little ice age. Prior to the Midieval warm period was a cooling era corresponding to the Dark Ages when the first Plague epidemic rocked the world. Back before that was the Roman warm period. They have found Roman ruins on the Swiss side of some glacier in the alps. It was unexplainable how they traveled back and forth to that outpost until the glacier recently melted back far enough that they have found relics exposed that date to Roman times. It seems that at that time there was a trail or road across the floor where the glacier advances during colder times:
The warming we are currently experiencing has been happening only since the last half of the 19th century.
The point of all this is that there is no AGW. "...yes I believe in global warming OVERALL, as measured over centuries..." As measured over centuries, there is climate change, period. We have nothing to do with it. As measured over millenia, there is cold, as in mile deep ice sheets over Chicago cold. With an occasional few thousand year warm period thrown in. All we can do is adapt to the warmer periods and, hopefully adapt to the cooler periods that are coming as surely as the sun is going to rise tomorrow. And, hopefully, be ready for the next time the bottom drops out and glaciation starts again. The hard part of it is that we won't know it until it is upon us.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
→ nofate
January 20, 2009 - 00:24 ET by Cool ArrowIf George Washington were around, aside from being very old, he could tell you about the close of the Little Ice Age.
Didn't Ben Franklin have some sort of theory about Indians causing the climate to change with their campfires?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Muslim, Khalil Gibran
Didn't Ben Franklin have
January 20, 2009 - 00:39 ET by JerDidn't Ben Franklin have some sort of theory about Indians causing the climate to change with their campfires?
And, in consequence of the government ban on all Indian campfires was the origination of the term "cool arrow". And now you know the rest of the story.
Jer
→ I don't know
January 20, 2009 - 00:51 ET by Cool ArrowI don't know if it's true. Probably not.
But I did hear something along those lines, and I shouldn't be repeating it without a source. But I promise I did hear something along those lines about Ben Franklin.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Muslim, Khalil Gibran
LOL!
January 20, 2009 - 00:51 ET by nofate"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Valley Forge
January 20, 2009 - 00:50 ET by nofateWhat I find fascinating is that that winter at Valley Forge and the Little Ice Age in general, were a part of a "warm" period between what are the more normal ice ages! See here and here.
Don't know about the Franklin quote, but he did say "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
As for the last quote, Sacrifice!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
When Bill Nye tried to pass
January 19, 2009 - 12:03 ET by danboWhen Bill Nye tried to pass that on Richard Lindzen. The Gulf Stream is principally driven by winds. To stop it you'd have to stop the earth from spinning.
Heaven forbid. Not all scientist agree with AGW.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Actually, Using
January 19, 2009 - 12:09 ET by danboActually, Using GISS "Adjusted analysis". It looks rather cool south of 35. Most of their warming last winter was in Russia.
Here.
There goes that theory.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Everything = Global Warming
January 19, 2009 - 12:22 ET by dboColder winters above 35 deg latitude are consistent with global warming
nwahs,
I think it's time to get off this favorite hobby horse of yours. This is the typical doublespeak you get from the usual suspects. According the the AGW bible, IPCC AR4:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar...
It s not a hobby horse.
January 19, 2009 - 22:30 ET by nwahsDo you want to know why the shortest day of the year isn't the coldest day of the year (on average)? Because of all the damn water on this planet. Thats right, the longest day of the year isn't the hottest day of the year and the shortest day of the year isn't the coldest because of the buffer all the damn water provides. The immediate effects of global warming isn't warmer weather. Its changes in water and air currents. You can further stupidity all you want,but this world has a tremendous amount of water. Its weather is immediately affected by that water. That's a simple non-partisan fact. So while you're hating Garth Brooks and anyone else that doesn't fit into your extreme world, hate science too.
The water? Warmers keep
January 19, 2009 - 22:47 ET by danboThe water? Warmers keep ignoring the oceans. Like the fact that we just went through the hot phase of the PDO, the El Ninos it brought. Without them you likely wouldn't have much warmth from the late 70's. Of course when it starts cooling the globe.... You whine.
R squared between something as simple as adding the PDO index and NAO index is far more statistically significant to climate than CO2.
You ignore the fact that it's cooling south of 35. But you insult others.
I call that ignoring what isn't convenient.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
At what elevation?
January 19, 2009 - 23:19 ET by nwahsAt what elevation is it cooling south of 35? The higher you go, the less you are affected by the water buffer. At what elevation is it cooling south of 35 - all?? The elevation is important. Very important.
And I apologize for being insulting. I've just grown frustrated with what it seems, fighting shoddy journalism with shoddy journalism. Some of the most slanted articles I ever read are HERE. Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?
We combat slant with what,not good journalism, but slant??
Elevation? Take your
January 19, 2009 - 23:34 ET by danboElevation? Take your pick.
If you want slanted reporting. Go to ReallScaredClimatologist.
These people allow dissent. Others don't.
Read NL's post.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
You find something conclusive there?
January 19, 2009 - 23:49 ET by nwahsYou find something conclusive there? Your understanding of the thermal dynamics of this world are such that you find something conclusive there, that in spite of less polar ice, the world is actually cooling or unchanging? Point it out please. I'm listening. Give me the important points.
And yes NB allows dissent, but the articles are horribly slanted. Now how is that good?
nwahs
January 19, 2009 - 23:56 ET by cocodrieThe decreased polar ice is offset by the increase of ice in the antarctic. Glaciers have also increased.
Jesus Loves You
There isn't less polar
January 19, 2009 - 23:58 ET by NL207There isn't less polar ice. What there is, is more sea ice melting in the Arctic summer with an approximately equal increase in sea ice in the Antacrtic. The AGW propagandists never mention what is going on in the Antarctic because it contradicts their thesis.
arctic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
antarctic: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
they have been going in opposite directinos.
Sorry NB shows what others
January 20, 2009 - 01:05 ET by danboSorry NB shows what others think. Not just the chosen few. And after the BS we all enjoy when nature doesn't agree with the AGW trolls.
If you look at the ice charts and pay attention. They're often measuring area with ice. If you look at the small print when it's there, they're defining ice cover as containing something like 17% ice. So if you have an area with 17% ice and a wind pushes the ice to a smaller area with 45% ice coverage. Do you really have less ice?
Secondly their records only go back about 18 years. Records show about 1918 people were sailing in ice free warters north of where there's ice now. The 1st transit of the NE passage was in 1878, 1st passage of the northwest passage was 1903/6.
Thirdly while alarming the world about the Arctic. The antartic was setting new records.
Lastly: You said "Colder winters above 35 deg latitude are consistent with global warming. Why? Because of heat transfer and ocean currents. Now, PJ, how are the winters doing below 35 degrees lat?That's where the interesting stuff is. Hows that going?"
If you look at the map South of 35N is also cooling for large areas.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Alarmist repeat propaganda about Polar Ice
January 20, 2009 - 07:35 ET by PopularTechWhy do you state such ridiculous things? There is not less "polar" ice:
Antarctic ice sheet thickening, researcher says (Associated Press)
East Antarctica's surface slowly rising (The New York Times)
Ice 'thickens' in West Antarctica (BBC)
Pondering A Climate Conundrum In Antarctica; Unique, Distinct Cooling Trend Discovered On Earth's Southernmost Continent (Science Daily)
Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening (USA Today)
Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Science Daily)
Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise (Science)
Study: Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Thickening, Not Thinning (ABC News)
The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research)
Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High (The Reference Frame)
Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades (Space.com)
Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Records in Oct. (The Heartland Institute)
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches "Unprecedented" Levels (Climate Audit)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I found this statement in
January 20, 2009 - 07:59 ET by ThisnThatI found this statement in the BBC article that PT linked.
Did you note this -- the ice sheet has been retreating over the last 10,000 years. Since the end of the last ice age, folks. YET, Al Gorites are claiming that Antartica is being destroyed by man-made global warming!?!?!
How in the world do people ignore scientific evidence placed right in front of them?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Complete and utter
January 19, 2009 - 22:10 ET by NL207Complete and utter Bulls***.
Global warming theory predicts the extreme latitudes will be warmed much more by AGW than the lower latitudes.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html
Lying bast**d.
Global Cooling below 35 Degrees Latitude
January 19, 2009 - 22:39 ET by PopularTech2005 - Hundreds of Children May Have Died in Afghanistan's Extreme Cold (The New York Times, February 18, 2005)
2005 - Cold, snow, rain, avalanches kill more than 1,000 in Asia (USA Today, February 23, 2005)
2005 - Record Cold From Montana To Texas (CBS News, December 7, 2005)
2006 - Delhi gets its coldest day in over 70 years (The Times of India, January 8, 2006)
2006 - Cold wave in north India kills over 150 (The Times of India, January 9, 2006)
2006 - Record cold has killed 49 so far this winter in Mexico (The Miami Herald, January 21, 2006)
2006 - Snow in Sept: Freak weather continues (The Times of India, September 3, 2006)
2006 - Snow falls in central Florida as state endures unusual Nov. cold snap (USA Today, November 22, 2006)
2006 - Cold spell drops SoCal temps to record levels (The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 19, 2006)
2007 - Indian Cold Wave Death Toll Hits 90 (Arab News, January 4, 2007)
2007 - Record cold snap for the nation's hottest town (The Australian, January 05, 2007)
2007 - Record cold seen for rest of week (The San Diego Union-Tribune, January 14, 2007)
2007 - Freezing temperatures destroy most of California citrus crop (International Herald Tribune, January 16, 2007)
2007 - Haryana, Punjab record cold temperatures (The Hindu, November 3, 2007)
2008 - Cold Weather Kills 38 in Northern India (FOX News, January 2, 2008)
2008 - Indian cold wave toll kills 90 (The Earth Times, January 3, 2008)
2008 - Cold Stretches Throughout East; Flurries Reported in Florida (FOX News, January 3, 2008)
2008 - First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad (AFP, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years (RIA Novosti, January 11, 2008)
2008 - China battles "coldest winter in 100 years" (Reuters, February 4, 2008)
2008 - China's freak cold weather killed 107 (Reuters, February 13, 2008)
2008 - Record cold kills cattle and rice in Vietnam (The Earth Times, February 13, 2008)
2008 - Freezing weather kills over 900 people in Afghanistan (RIA Novosti, February 16, 2008)
2008 - Cold weather kills 60,000 cattle in Vietnam (China Daily, February 18, 2008)
2008 - ISRAEL: Cold weather kills 14 homeless people (Reuters. February 21, 2008)
2008 - Cold kills 1,300 in Afghanistan (RIA Novosti, February 27, 2008)
2008 - Extreme cold kills 1,000 Tibetan gazelles (China Daily, March 7, 2008)
2008 - The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, April 21, 2008)
2008 - Charlotte temperature hits 123-year low (The Charlotte Observer, July 2, 2008)
2008 - 'Snowfall' shocks Kenyan village (BBC, September 3, 2008)
2008 - Tibet's 'worst snowstorm ever', 7 killed (Xinhua, October 30, 2008)
2008 - South Florida cold spell breaks records (Sun Sentinel, October 30, 2008)
2008 - Bitter cold shatters record (The Charlotte Observer, November 19, 2008)
2008 - Rare 50 year Arctic Blast Sets Sights On Southern California (Ontario Weather Service, December 8, 2008)
2008 - Houston ties earliest snowfall record (Houston Chronicle, December 10, 2008)
2008 - Rare snow falls in south Louisiana, Miss., Alabama (Associated Press, December 11, 2008)
2008 - Frigid Storm Closes California Freeways, Drops Snow in Malibu (FOX News, December 18, 2008)
2008 - Las Vegas gets heaviest snow fall in 30 years (The Daily Telegraph, UK, December 18, 2008)
2008 - Carports collapse under heavy snow (Las Vegas Sun, December 18, 2008)
2008 - Bihar cold wave death toll rises to 24 (The Bihar Times, India, December 19, 2008)
2008 - Snow, again? Vegas sets another record this morning (Las Vegas Sun, December 23, 2008)
2008 - San Juan County, New Mexico experiences rare white Christmas (The Daily Times, December 25, 2008)
2008 - Thousands trapped in -15 degree snowstorm in Sikkim, India (The Times of India, December 27, 2008)
2008 - White Christmas in Hawaii (Big Island Video News, December 27, 2008)
2009 - Poor burn books to stay warm in chilly India, 55 dead (Reuters, January 5, 2009)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
So What?
January 20, 2009 - 03:02 ET by nofatenwahs: this will come in way down the page. I've been following the conversation and it is apparent to me that you have your point of view and logic and facts will not change it. But, as we all think we can somehow change minds with logic (is that logical?- I guess it depends on the person you are debating), here goes my attempt.
"Colder winters above 35 deg latitude are consistent with global warming"
It doesn't matter. More ice or less, more water or less, it doesn't matter. If there is global warming still occuring it doesn't matter. If we have switched over to global cooling, so be it, it doesn't matter. All the AGW crowd wants to do is separate the gullible from their money and gain political power. In the long run, that doesn't matter either, unless you want to cede your children and grandchildren's freedom to a total control nanny state. But that's another part of the debate.
The bottom line is, there is climate change. Period. You have access to all the information we have and can read the offerings we have all put up. You know that this period we live in is a warming period (with minor fluctuations that we percieve as global warming and cooling, i.e. Midieval Warming or Little Ice Age) that will only last at most a few more thousand years. The bottom could drop out tomorrow, the next day, or more than a thousand years from now. We can't do a thing about it, except, prepare for it and use our advanced technologies to mitigate the severity to humanity. Instead, charlatans like Gore and Hansen and now Obama and McCain insist we spend vast resources and political capital on demagoguing the issue. When the bottom does drop out and we enter the next ice age, we can pretty well count on about 90,00 years or so of mile thick ice sheets scraping cities like Chicago off the face of the earth. Will we have adapted? Who knows. The latitudes south of 35 deg. will certainly be colder then!
Climate changes. Period.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I agree we won't change the
January 20, 2009 - 09:26 ET by danboI agree we won't change the opinion of warmers.
In my opinion the approach of the warmers has been to pretend theirs are the only voices of reason or science. They ignore inconvient voices and facts. When those who disagree speak up they try to silence them with insults, decete, and misleading information. They've intimidated many into silence, and hope that we will give up and be quiet also.
The last folly of the Greens killed millions of people. This faux science will also kill.
Regardless of changing the opinion of warmers. We have a responsibility to speak up for science, and for the people who will taste the destructive policies the Greens will force on everyone but themselves.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Al Gores "Hot Pants"
January 19, 2009 - 10:35 ET by Retired GeekAl Gore Science lab, a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Gore Industries has made a startling discovery.
They have determined that human flatulence averages 1 to 3 pints a day. Al Gore immediately discerned that this flatulence is a major contributor to Global Warming and set his science lab to work.
The Al Gore Science Lab has responded with a New Clothing line named 'Hot Pants'.
The rear of the pants contains 'Smart' technology along with an electronic pilot light, when the 'Smart' device detects flatulence, it immediately fires the pilot light, thus burning off the gas (do NOT wear while pumping gasoline).
The clothing line has 'Hot Pants' for both females and males.
WARNING 'Spooning' with a female may be dangerous to male testicles, if both are wearing Hot Pants.
Barack Obama praised the Liberal Genius Al Gore and stated he may mandate all citizens to wear the clothing line.
Obama stated there is nothing like watching people walking at night in Hot Pants - it reminds him watching fireflies when he was a child.
Retired Geek
January 19, 2009 - 11:45 ET by thebutlerdiditVery funny! Of course , it does give a whole new meaning to the term "hot pants" though. Fireflies? LOL.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
It's Called Job Security Heidi!!!
January 19, 2009 - 10:43 ET by flyingmonkeyIf climate didn't change, would we need Heidi Cullen, or for that matter, would we even need the weather channel?
no doubt
January 19, 2009 - 10:57 ET by AJBThere is certain activity caused by humans that is causing symptoms of climate change. One of the most pronounced is in Africa and I believe its Mt Kilimanjaro. Humans cut down all the trees at the base of the mountains. Those trees kept the hot desert winds off the mountain. Without the trees, there is melting of the snow. I would never argue we must be vigilant in identifying stupid activity and trying to reverse the consequences of bad decisions. We can succeed. For example, 20 years ago, you could pogo stick across Lake Erie. With a focus on stopping rampant waste dumping into the lake, we have successfully cleared up the lake, fish are now again thriving.
There's a fine line between the Global Warming scare tactics which seem to be aimed at raising money for liberal causes, and true scientific examination of problems created by man. I don't think anyone is for going back to the day of dumping waste, ala Lake Erie. They need to tone down their rhetoric and let knowledgeable experts identify and correct what we can.
A few questions...
January 19, 2009 - 11:49 ET by considerthisWhen was the tree-cutting done? A group of my fellow workmates went on a trip to climb Kilimanjaro in 2007. Saw plenty of trees in the pictures they took.
Also how do 5-40 ft trees stop winds from blowing on a 19,340 ft mountain? Does hot air stop at tree level?
There is a huge danger in thinking that just because something happens at the same time as something else, that it has caused it. Correlation is not causation. A great example is Van Helmont (the 17th century version of Al Gore) he was an unquestioned chemist and physician. He 'proved' that if a little corn is left in a jar for 21 days and a dirty sheet is stuffed into the mouth of the jar, then the corn will turn into mice. Sounded right from observation, but completely wrong.
The trees
January 19, 2009 - 17:53 ET by NorthCoasterThe trees wer on the plains and foothjills surrounding Kilamanjaro. The general deforestation in the areas surrounding the mountain has resulted in reducing the amount of cool moisture laden air reaching the glaciated areas. The drier air causes dessication or sublimation of the ice. Studies show that the average temperature hasn't changed.
The Pielkes (Father and Son) and their associates of the University of Colorado have written extensively on man's effect on local climate through deforestation and other land use change.
Dumping waste in Lak Erie
January 19, 2009 - 12:19 ET by ckc1227Dumping waste in Lak Erie isn't global warming-related, and the melting snows of Kilamanjaro is not a tragedy/disaster/problem.
There is no fine line. If folks want to address polution, address polution. If they want to address the dumping of waste in lakes, then address the dumping of waste in lakes. None of those things have anything to do with global warming. The sooner they stop trying to make everything fall under the umbrella of global warming, the sooner legitimate problems will be addressed.
I'd like to applaud
January 19, 2009 - 11:14 ET by nicksmith112I'd like to applaud Newsbusters for not spending millions to go green. In fact ORANGE(color of the flame) is the new green.
Lets all work together and heat this planet up! If we all open a window for just 5 minutes each night we can heat this planet up one degree at a time!
please don't make a mockery of this.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Still waiting for the 'we
January 19, 2009 - 11:19 ET by RR GOPStill waiting for the 'we saved the Ozone layer!' party.
That hoax died a quiet death.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Goin' green makes me go postal
January 19, 2009 - 11:51 ET by thebutlerdiditI just have to know, when you are shopping and innundated by the hundreds of products that now say they are "green," or save the earth or some such crap, does it make anyone else feel like going postal??? I just get so p'od. I can't explain exactly why it makes me so freaky, other than I think most of this stuff is totally ridiculous. Anyone else feel the same? I also get pretty perturbed about all the commercials for these things, too.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Check out the latest comments
January 19, 2009 - 11:57 ET by NorthCoasterThe founder of The Weather Channel, Joseph D'Aleo, hosts a site called Icecap. It's a great site linking to articles by scientists studying or discussing climate.
http://icecap.us/index.php
Well....if Al doesn't have
January 19, 2009 - 14:33 ET by oldArmyWell....if Al doesn't have to return his Nobel Peace Prize....this is the final nail in the coffin for their credibility(back when they awarded people like Albert Einstein) . How can he still have it?How did he get this in the first place?....just amazing to me what the left gets away with.
"Climate Change"? - here are some equivalently redundant terms..
January 19, 2009 - 12:04 ET by jazboRound wheel
Hot Flame
Cold Snow
Dellusional Liberal
Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.
This is a win.
January 19, 2009 - 14:07 ET by G. MayThis is a win.
Hey, in six months or so,
January 19, 2009 - 12:45 ET by Chris NormanHey, in six months or so, once Obama owns this recession, will the media start calling it "Economic Change"?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Obama will never "own" this
January 19, 2009 - 12:51 ET by RoverObama will never "own" this recession, the Media will blame Bush for as long as it lasts.
They're also going to start talking UP the economy to build confidence, the way they've been talking it down for eight years, trying to tip us into a recession. (I'm lately reminded of Sundance asking "think you used enough dynamite, Butch?" Now they have a much bigger mess on their hands than they ever intended, and they have to explain why Obama won't be able to turn it around with a waive of his hand, like they promised he would.)
Rover
Rover, come on, it was a joke
January 19, 2009 - 12:57 ET by Chris NormanEasy there, Rover. That was a set up for the joke. Besides, recharacterizing the economic conditions will be a media tool to protect Obama from political harm.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I didn't mean to come across as an attack
January 19, 2009 - 13:05 ET by RoverChris,
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as attacking you.
It WAS an amusing comment about Economic Change. Maybe during the Next recession - the media will be falling over themselves to try to describe it as anything BUT a recession.
Rover
Rover,
January 19, 2009 - 13:18 ET by Chris NormanOh now, I didn't take it as an attack. :) I just didn't want you to think that I was actually suggesting the media will ever hold Obama repsonsible for bad times. However, sooner or later, some people (besides conservatives) who aren't Obama-flavor Kool-Aid drinkers will - despite media's best efforts.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
"Red Hot Lies"
January 19, 2009 - 12:52 ET by Chris NormanIn the midst of ObamaFest '09 this weekend, there was an excellent episode of AfterWords on C-Span 2, where Jed Babbin of Human Events interviewed Christoper Horner, the author of the book, Red Hot Lies - How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed . If you see that it's being rebroadcast, definitely check it out. Kudoes to C-Span for not having Horner interviewed by a hostile liberal host.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Bottom Line
January 19, 2009 - 12:56 ET by nofateClimate changes. Period.
Follow the money- it is the only reason for the AGW scare and will be the reason for the next crisis, whatever it is. And there will be another "crisis". The fact that the climate changes is obvious to any thinking person not trying to take advantage of the gullibility of those who don't pay attention.
Look at this meteor strike and use your imagination for an example of what can be thrown at us in an instant without warning. Warming and cooling cycles have always existed. They have nothing to do with the influence of man. The little ice age, i.e. the "dark ages" brought in the spread of the first plague epidemic. The later Maunder Minimum is a documented phenomenon that the AGW alarmists try to shrug off, but it was just a taste of what could happen. Look at this graph (x-axis=number of years before present; y-axis=temperature change in degrees Celsius). It shows that we have just been in the warm cycle of an interglacial period that "normally" lasts around 90,000 to 100,000 years. The current warm cycle we are in normally lasts about 10,000 to 20,000 years. And we are about 12,000 into it. When we finally get back into the glaciation phase of the "normal" cycle on earth, we may be looking at mile deep ice on top of Chicago. If we haven't spent our time and resources wisely and figured out ways to adapt, it will be very tragic.
Point is, climate changes. Period. Global warming or global cooling alarmism is just a way for the politicians to separate the gullible from their money.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I think this was all summed
January 19, 2009 - 13:01 ET by Chris NormanI think this was all summed up nicely last week when a caller to Glenn Beck said that when someone argued the fact of "Climate Change", he answers,
"The temperature of Earth has fluctuated since the beginning of time, from ice ages to warm ups and back to ice ages. Given that, exactly what is the temperature supposed to be?".
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Ice Ages the Main Act
January 19, 2009 - 13:18 ET by nofateAbsolutely, Chris. I am reading "Unstoppable Global Warming..." by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. They talk about one theory that two different scientists came up with based on their data, that there is a 135,000,000 million year cycle that influences earth's climate based on our solar system's passege through the arms of the milky way. It's really too much to grasp, but that and the graph cited above, plus the Maunder, etc. just reinforces how assinine these people really are.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate,
January 19, 2009 - 13:25 ET by Chris NormanI wish you luck. My attention span wouldn't allow me to slog through a book like that. I'm glad there others, like you, to do that job and report back. :).
I suggest you take a look at my post, immediately or so above, and the book by Christopher Horner titled "Red Hot Lies". He also wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism". He has the GW crowd's motives and methods pegged and then some.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I Saw That
January 19, 2009 - 16:17 ET by nofateI'm going to do a search to see if the program on Cspan shows up. That book was one of the ones I was looking at when I was shopping Amazon. I was looking for decent prices, and I knew Singers name so that one won out. I'll put "Red Hot Lies" on my wishlist, which is much larger than my budget, both monetary and time wise :-)
From the Conservative Book Club review of "Red Hot Lies":
Warning!: AGW believers- Do NOT Read!!! Danger of causing Exploding Head Syndrome!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com