One of the favorite shows of your humble correspondent is the "Deadliest Catch." No, I have no fantasies about working on a crab boat in Alaska. I am too much of a warm weather guy to make it through even a day in the frigid conditions on the Bering Sea. However, I do enjoy watching the show quite a bit to the extent of visiting their website yesterday during a commercial break in the "Deadliest Catch" television marathon on the Discovery Channel.
On the "Deadliest Catch" home page is this link: SEA ICE SCIENCE...New! Is global warming changing the Bering Sea? Get the answers now. Curious for the answers, I clicked the link which brought me to Bering Sea Ice: Science Q&A by Helen Fields. The Q&A presents overwhelming evidence that the Bering Sea has been getting colder lately. The conclusion: global warming.
Amazing.
Let us first read the evidence that Fields presents demonstrating the lowering temperatures in the Bering Sea area:
The Bering Sea, where the boats of Deadliest Catch do their work, is not known for toasty warm weather. But still, some years are colder than others. The last two winters have been particularly chilly -- and they've been huge years for ice. The last time the ice came this far south was in the early 1970s, when scientists first used satellites to monitor the ice.
The first Q&A presents this question:
So where does all that ice come from?
And here is their answer:
Sea ice is frozen seawater. It's different from icebergs, which break off from glaciers or ice shelves. In the Bering Sea, the ice mostly forms in the north, starting in November or December, and blows south, toward the fishing and crabbing grounds.
As the leading edge of the ice reaches warmer water, it melts. But the melting ice cools the water -- like when you put ice in lemonade -- and the next batch of south-moving ice doesn't melt as fast. Eventually, as ice keeps blowing south, the water is cold enough for the ice to stay frozen, and the ice spreads across the sea.
Unlike the Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea is always ice-free in summer. This year, the last of the free-floating ice melted on Monday, June 22.
Hmm... So it sounds like the fee-floating ice lasted in the Bering Sea until rather late in the year. The next question presented sounded like they read my mind:
Wait -- what about global warming? Shouldn't the Bering Sea be heating up?
And here is the stunning answer:
Here's the thing about climate change. Yeah, the average temperature of the Earth is going up, but that doesn't mean every spot on the globe gets warmer every year.
By getting cold again, the Bering Sea is just continuing the pattern it has had since people started keeping track about 90 years ago: a few warm years followed by a few cold years. From 2001 to 2005, the Bering Sea was really warm. The north winds that blow ice down to the southern part of the Bering Sea, where most of the fishing is, weren't as strong.
In 2007 things turned cold again -- and the next two winters, the ice came much farther south. So, yes, it's a lot of ice, but it's part of the usual warm-cold-warm-cold pattern of weather in the Bering Sea. "There is some global warming effect in the Bering Sea, but it's still dominated by the large swings from warm to cold and back to warm again," says Jim Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.
As the Earth's atmosphere continues to warm, the Bering Sea is expected to follow suit. On average, the ice will disappear earlier in the spring. But the pattern of warmer years followed by cooler years should continue.
Huh? So they admit the temperatures are cyclical but hold stubbornly to the global warming theory for which no evidence is presented. See, if it is getting warmer that is evidence for global warming. However, if the temperatures are getting colder, that is also proof of global warming according to this bizarre reasoning.
My suggestion to the Discovery Channel is to do what they are supposed to do. Discover the science behind global warming instead of blindly accepting it as established fact. Present evidence by both sides in the global warming debate. In fact, why not present a debate on this subject? Invite Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, or James Hansen to argue in favor of global warming versus members of the growing scientific community (as well as John Stoessel) who have become skeptical of that theory.
Meanwhile, I will continue to watch the crews the "Deadliest Catch" work in the increasingly cold weather of the Bering Sea where global warming seems to have left no mark whatever.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Here's the thing about
July 26, 2009 - 08:12 ET by MidAmericaHere's the thing about climate change. Yeah, the average temperature of the Earth is going up, but that doesn't mean every spot on the globe gets warmer every year.
Well I'm no mathematician, I was always gooder in English, but I do understand averaging. If some places are cooling then the places that are warming can't be waming just a little. In order to raise the average the hot spots will have to be really cooking to compensate for the cool areas. In my part of the midwest we have now had two very mild summers. Quite pleasant actually. Plenty of rain and mild temperatures have our lawns looking bright green and healthy whereas in the past, unless you watered, starting near the end of July the lawns would be drying up and turning brown in the summer heat.
But, but ---- don't they
July 26, 2009 - 08:32 ET by ThisnThatBut, but ---- don't they have 90 years worth of data? Like, man, that's forever dude. Those scientist-types, they are really, like, smart people, and if you don't want to get, like, caught in an inferno, we gotta do something quick. So, sure, I'm afraid, and all my friends are afraid, and we don't know what to do, man. It's a good thing we have somebody like Al Gore to help us, and Obama too, because without them, we'd all be like toast. Bummer, man.
___________________________________
An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be
^
July 26, 2009 - 08:44 ET by jacktheripperlol, funny stuf. all you are missing is *sounds of a bong hit* "I LOVE DEAD KENNEDY'S"
That is assuming that the
July 26, 2009 - 08:33 ET by Seabeach4348That is assuming that the average temperature of the earth actually IS increasing. And if it is accurate, is this not part of the normal cycles of warming and cooling? Yeah, the earth is and always will be in a state of flux with or without humans. The latest fear grenade is that we have 10 years (or is is 8? Can't remember it keeps changing) to do something now or we are all screwed!
Remember this global warming doomsday information comes from the very same fruitcakes, losers, and lunatics who said, with great certainty, 30 years ago that the earth was cooling and entering another ice age. They also said that by 1990 the earth would run out of crude oil, the earth's population would cause global food shortages by 2000 (including the USA), and of course I remember that the ozone layer was supposed to disappear completely by sometime after 2000 if we didn't "do something" now.
So if
July 26, 2009 - 08:46 ET by Paragrouperwe have 10 years (or 8, I can't remember the latest screaming either) to Do something Now! or be screwed, how about we spend a few of those years actually sudying the problem and formulating a real plan to combat the problem.
Assuming, of course, that this isn't just another case of 'premature speculation" from our wacky scientific community.
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
We Can Give Up Now
July 26, 2009 - 12:30 ET by dboActually, it was 10 years....back in 1989!!! Pretty soon the goalposts will be on the 50 yard line.
You know, if we only have
July 26, 2009 - 14:47 ET by FranksamYou know, if we only have ten (or eight or whatever) years left, shouldn't we just be having a big Bon Voyage party and let's all get over it. I don't want to waste the last years of my life worrying about the future. I've already spent too much time on that.
I'm going to eat red meat and drive too fast and enjoy other earthly pleasures (I'm trying to avoid being crude, but you all know what I mean) and cram as much fun into my existence as I can before it's too late.
Oh, wait, my wife just told me that I've pretty much done that since she met me forty years ago. Never mind.
And let's not forget...
July 27, 2009 - 09:39 ET by misterbee241Let's not forget that in the 80's we were all going to die from acid rain. What happened to that? In the 90's Ted Turner and his ilk invented the hole in the ozone that was going to fry us. What happened to that? Now in the new century we have global warming/climate change. Their explanations for cooling are too convenient. An Inconvenient Lie.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
PJ
July 26, 2009 - 08:15 ET by ricklailDeadliest Catch might be responsible for saving my life. I had the same symtoms that Phil Harris did when he had the blood clot in the lung. I went to the hospital ER and they found a small clot. Had it not been for what he went through I may have just passed it off as gas.
When Sig says " Damn all this ice. It must be that global warming causing it" I'll quit watching. What makes the show so great is they don't mention politics.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
Deadliest Catch
July 26, 2009 - 08:21 ET by P.J. GladnickI'm a fan of the Deadliest Catch and will continue to watch that show. In fact, it has made me quite hungry for Alaskan King crab to the extent that I am planning on going to an Alaskan King crab buffet this Friday (only $7.99---no kidding!).
However, it is the Discovery Channel, not the crab boat crews, who have injected global warming politics into this. I went to "The Deadliest Catch" website to get even more info about a show I enjoy. Unfortunately, right on the home page they injected global warming into it.
MY HEAD HURTS.........just
July 26, 2009 - 08:27 ET by jacktheripperMY HEAD HURTS.........just like it did when I had to do "new math" in school all those years ago , I guess I never will figure out this voodoo science just like the math....sigh "I LOVE DEAD KENNEDY'S"
Good shows increasingly being taken over by GW alarmists
July 26, 2009 - 08:20 ET by BKeyserI caught the end of a "Modern Marvels" (I think) episode on the History channel recenetly. The subject was "earth movers" or something along the lines of large construction equipment (that stuff interests me, and apparently not much else worth watching was on...) Anyway, by the time I tuned to the show, about 15 minutes were remaining and they were talking about sending a space craft to Mars to release CO2 into the martian atmosphere. (Anyone get where this is going?) So, the CO2 begins to warm the planet- first slowly, but then to the point where plant life can grow and finally making it warm enough for humans to colonize the planet (because ours will be inhabitable by that point due to??? That's right! Global Warming!) I guess thats where the construction equipment would come in. All this could occur within 100 years time, according to the goofball they put in front of the camera.
How do you make the leap from Terex dump trucks to man-made Mars-warming? You can hardly watch an expose on D-Day without somone blaming humans (read: Americans) for global warming- if not while discussing the landing on Normandy Beach, then in the commercials for other shows... Discovery, NatGeo, the Science Channel, and now History are all seemingly high-jacked by Al Gore's Manbearpig search party!
I saw that show. It
July 26, 2009 - 08:58 ET by Seabeach4348I saw that show. It is next to impossible to tune into Discovery, Nat-geo, Science Channel, History Channel, or (gag) Weather Channel without some cheap, stupid reference to global warming. I can't wait until the guys on "Ghost Hunters" start telling me that global warming caused an increase in paranormal activity!
The atmosphere on Mars is approximately 90% CO2 right here, right now. And it's as cold as hell out there with night time temperatures in the minus 80 to minus 100 degree range. It's cold enough for CO2 to exist as ice at the polar caps. Atmospheric water vapor is almost non-existent.
Earth's atmosphere contains approx. 0.03% CO2 so please explain to me how even a sizable increase in CO2 is going to cause catastrophic global warming?
Mars is also a lot more distant from the Sun than we are. Hmmm. the Sun. could that have anything to do with warming the atmosphere?
It is next to impossible
July 26, 2009 - 12:15 ET by motherbeltIt is next to impossible to tune into Discovery, Nat-geo,
Science Channel, History Channel, or (gag) Weather Channel without
some cheap, stupid reference to global warming.
Even the Food Network is infected!
Not global warming per se, but "green" everything. In some sort of miracle they haven't taken Rachel Ray's "garbage bowl" away from her, but other chefs make a point of saying they are putting their stuff into "compost containers" under the counters, (does anyone think they have a compost bin outside their studio in NYC???). The paper towels are brown recycled paper, and on The Next Food Network Star, the only place they take them to shop is Whole Foods, and they are all loaded down with about a dozen reusuable tote bags each for their groceries (yes, they go into the store carrying them!)
There's no escape!
THank you, mb
July 26, 2009 - 13:07 ET by BlondeYou saved me a rant!
All of my favorites are being overtaken by Global Warming and "greening"....it drives me bonkers.
I hope he fails, too.
Dittos B -
July 26, 2009 - 14:12 ET by acumenAnd don't even get me started on the Weather Channel.
I can relate to the greenshinanagans (sounds like a name for a funky salad) at the Food Channel MB was talking about. The wife brought that up the other day while we were watching the Food Channel and my first thought was; NO, not another one. Then Bobby Flay got in his SUV to go to the next throwdown and all was right with the world.
On the positive side, with the cooling over the last eight years this green stuff is starting to lose it's appeal to anyone with the least common sense.
And we still have sitcom reruns that were taped before warming became cool.
Composting is a good idea
July 26, 2009 - 14:24 ET by Dan The Man 2Composting is a good idea and actually warming neutral. It saves space in landfills and cause green things, no not what shows up in your teeth, to grow.
Dittos PJ
July 26, 2009 - 09:16 ET by acumenDeadliest Catch is one of my favorite shows as well. And now some global warming alarmist has to come along and ruin it for me.
As far as the History Channel goes I agree BK. Every other show either drags some not-so-distant earth warming disaster scenario into the mix or some anti-Christian propaganda that could have been written (maybe was) by Ron Howard.
All I'm looking for is some factual history. Not some shockumentary about Nostradamus predicting global warming around a 1000 years ago which is now perpetuated by descendants of the Knights Templar which by-the-way, could have possibly been, even though it's a stretch, maybe devil worshippers that are thought to have left coded messages about Judas Iscariot presiding over the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. On the History Channel?
The distorted history was getting so pervasive I was getting real close to knocking the History Channel off the favorites list - then Ice Road Truckers added Lisa to the show. And the rest is history....
acumen:
July 26, 2009 - 09:22 ET by BKeyserI guess at some point The History Channel shortened its moniker to just History. I think more appropriately, they should have lengthened it to "Revised History- the way we wanted it to be."
Noticed that BK
July 26, 2009 - 12:24 ET by acumenI think it is due to developing sister History channels seemingly based on content i.e. - History International channel, Military History channel, etc, etc.
Which is fine with me if they would only stick to actual history and leave the non-proven theories to special-interest groups like AGW modelers which to date can't seem to get the science to match their models no matter how much they manipulate either.
BTW - I also enjoy Modern Marvels too.
The UFO Channel?
July 26, 2009 - 19:34 ET by nkviking75When flipping through the channels, it sure seems like History spends a lot of time on UFO's lately.
I have developed Viking's law of cable programming: Every channel launched with a niche format will eventually drift away from that format and drift into general interest programming. How much music is on Music Television? (MTV) How many Video Hits on Video Hits 1 (VH1)? The SciFi Channel just became SyFy, probably to escape being tainted by the stereotype of nerdy Star Trek/Star Wars fans. Even the Weather Channel spends far less time on forecasts and far more time on reality programming.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
tired of liberal lies LOL
July 26, 2009 - 19:45 ET by stunnedtired of liberal lies
LOL Nostradamus...Knights Templar... Devil Worshippers...Hee Hee Haw Haw Haw... Mary Magdaline...End of World... sides hurt. I am sooo addicted to that channel and I do find myself yelling at the TV because of that nonsense but I will keep watching but know I will be laughing every time one of these topics show up. Thanks for the post!!
from another Deadliest Catch fan
July 26, 2009 - 09:24 ET by mom_roxI saw one episode of another Discovery show (can't remember the name, but I wouldn't yet describe it as a 'good show') where an inventor was testing his wind turbine. His turbine was essentially a tethered dirigible with fins and a conductive cable.
But of course, the people in the show (the inventor and the Discovery team) stated that this invention was necessary due to global warming, not climate change, and the Discovery team leader traveled to France to look at ominous climate models on what "could happen" if we don't change our evil ways. No opposing view was presented.
Even if there were some global warming, I bet Sig (who keeps griping about the increasing sea ice) and the other guys wouldn't mind.
~~save your tea, dump congress~~
I'm with you P.J.
July 26, 2009 - 08:29 ET by RukusThe Deadliest Catch rocks! One of my favorite shows. No politics either! Rock on!
Gary
Hey, Jimmah Che Obama! I want my country back!
Ditto, Gary
July 26, 2009 - 10:08 ET by SickofLibsNo politics on TDC, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'll bet there's not a single liberal among all the crews, and many of them are pretty young guys (well, the greenhorns, anyway).
I watched the skippers
July 26, 2009 - 08:50 ET by 10ksnookerComplain about the ice getting farther south each year ... Hilarious.
Here is the simple thing about global warming ... If Al Gore's theory for dumb people is correct then ... WHY -- In the case of AGW, all the GCMs and the theory predicts that there should be a measurable hotspot in the upper troposphere. Observations from satellites and weather balloons have been made, and no hotspot has been found. In a
less politicized field, this would have been the end of it.
End of theory, it's composed of as much hokum as government run healthcare will be better and save money.
10ksnooker, If a theory
July 26, 2009 - 13:59 ET by hydrodynDM10ksnooker,
If a theory makes a prediction about a certain proposed phenomena, and that particular prediction isn't observed, that doesn't meant the phenomenon doesn't exist.
It could mean that, but it could also just mean that the theory about that phenomenon is incorrect.
Either way, it wouldn't be the "end of it" - politics or not.
But it does bring the
July 26, 2009 - 14:24 ET by danboBut it does bring the theory into question. As does the MWP, lack of warming with increased CO2 concentrations, a warm period without increased CO2, Cooling with increased CO2, the fact that the adjustments to data could easily account for the increased warming, the fact that so many of these warmers aren't open with the science (but saying trust me), the fact that so much contrary data is supressed and ignored, and a whole lot of other inconvenient facts.
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.
danbo, I grant all of
July 26, 2009 - 15:18 ET by hydrodynDMdanbo,
I grant all of that. I was just pointing out that a single observation isn't enough to say "that ends it" in the case of GW.
As I see it, since GW models are based on making predictions about a system that isn't fully understood, there's all kind of room to speculate about whether the theories are basically correct but wrong in details, if they are just flat out wrong, if the empirical evidence is reliable or if it is being interpreted correctly.
I'm in no position to say either way - which is why I typically ignore discussions about GW.
I don't argue that one fact
July 26, 2009 - 16:20 ET by danboI don't argue that one fact disputes AGWing any more than one proves it. But then I'm not the one saying AGWing is fact. And expecting everyone who doubts it to be quiet, or pretend a whole lot of inconvenient truths and evidence that severely weakens an unproven theory of AGWing don't exist.
We're being told a weak theory is fact. It's been elevated to a law.
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.
danbo, The thing that
July 26, 2009 - 18:17 ET by hydrodynDMdanbo,
The thing that strikes me is that just about every scientist I've been around when the topic of AGW (or just GW in general) has come up has (figuratively and in some cases literally) rolls their eyes at how out of hand those within that area of study have gotten about their models and predictions.
The problem is that some unscrupulous people (both inside and outside of science) have taken advantage of the fact that most people don't really understand what science is about and how to view its theories and models.
They know that if you put the word "science" on it, a lot of people will simply accept it as true - whether the theory actually has merit or not.
Re models
July 26, 2009 - 19:34 ET by slickwillie2001Might help to remind them that computer models were also used to predict the level of risk and set the credit ratings on all those bundled subprime mortgages that brought down AIG and a few other institutions. Modeling climate I suggest is at least another magnitude of complexity.
I'm retired now, but I
July 26, 2009 - 20:33 ET by danboI'm retired now, but I worked in a nebulous arena, in a complex system with multiple known and unknown variables. So I have a sympathy for those studying something as complex as climate.
But when I see people not just saying we aughta look at this, but demanding beyond question it's true. And basically narrowing it down to one causal variable. That's BS. Especially when you watch them manipulate and give cherry picked data.
The science I studied, was open to other ideas. Now it's shut up if you disagree.
Science is important. But warmers have given science a black eye. I fear when science really has something important to say; people won't listen because of the warmer charlatans.
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.
tired of liberal lies The
July 26, 2009 - 19:49 ET by stunnedtired of liberal lies
The biggest green house gas is WATER VAPOR and that is never factored into these nutty computer models because we don't know enough about its impact yet. Garbage in Garbage out.
Chump or chum?
July 26, 2009 - 09:27 ET by acumenYeah, the average temperature of the Earth is going up, but that doesn't mean every spot on the globe gets warmer every year.
How about when 3,000 locations on the earth set record lows in just one single month -- Does the average temperature of the Earth still go up?
My question to Deadliest Catch Home Page - Would Algore make good crab bait?
Nah...
July 27, 2009 - 12:31 ET by AtillaKahunaNot even King Crabs will eat that much bulls#it.
There seems to be little doubt that the religion, AGW...
July 26, 2009 - 09:51 ET by ThalpyThere seems to be little doubt that the religion, AGW has been accepted by its true believers based on faith. This may account for the fierce battle with scientific evidence refuting their belief.
Re religion
July 26, 2009 - 10:06 ET by slickwillie2001The irony there is that the same liberals that are fanatically anti-religious, or anti-traditional-religions, have bought into the pseudo-religion of AGW, complete with its own eschatology, gods, minor deities, theology, etc.
ditto
July 26, 2009 - 11:21 ET by BKeyserditto
Go figure
July 26, 2009 - 10:27 ET by Joe CamelI have caught them several times just outright missing the facts (deliberately) I am sure. After all, they too have an agenda. I have seen this on the History Channel and all those other channels that purport to show you the facts. I put little stock in what they say when most can be debunked with a little fact checking. Shame this is where we are today.
Very hit or miss
July 26, 2009 - 10:54 ET by TjexciteDiscovery Channel is very hit or miss on any show. Is AGW going to kill us all or is it natural. When they have a show about space they tend to miss the AGW happing all over, but when they have a show on the earth they can go either way. Some show on how to "fix" AGW they miss the history of cycles of climate. As it has never changed in all the 4 Billion years it has been here.
The Crew of crab boats would love AGW. The farther north they can go without ice the more crab. If they could go all the way to the strait they would. With the ice they could lose all the traps and cost thousands without the ice they could make millions.
The one show that should not be on Discovery Channel at least on the Canadian feed is Chris Angel. It goes against what discovery is, if he shows how he does the tricks it would be much better. I can watch discovery all day and he comes on I switch.
Re Disco
July 26, 2009 - 11:21 ET by slickwillie2001One of the most ridiculous was their program called something like 'Ten things that could destroy Earth'. Nine of the ten were interesting and plausible, like a nearby supernova, a major comet or asteroid strike, etc, but the tenth one was AGW.
All of those channels, like A&E, TLC, DIS, History, etc, seem to have been infiltrated by far-left liberals with an agenda.
"Today’s debate about
July 26, 2009 - 11:16 ET by danbo"Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles
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.
Yet another example proving you need not be uneducated...
July 26, 2009 - 11:25 ET by wnaegele...nor ignorant to be stupid.
Discovery Channel - demonstrating a dangerous mind at work
July 26, 2009 - 11:32 ET by Gary HallThe Discovery Channel: "Discovering" how bizarrely the human mind can become as it fights to make sense out of an incorrect and illogical set of beliefs in the face of straight common sense.
(:~> gary
When the ice road truckers
July 26, 2009 - 13:12 ET by RR GOPWhen the ice road truckers are able to drive from Alaska to Siberia across the Bering Ice Bridge, we'll still be hearing this global warming garbage.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
"Mrs. Crabtree,
July 26, 2009 - 13:32 ET by SickofLibs"Mrs. Crabtree, yes, I think the earth is warming up real fast, and all that leftover cold has to go somewhere, so it ended up in the Bering Sea. Thank you."
– Alfalfa Switzer, 4th Period Science
July 26, 2009 - 16:07 ET by jessieHSounds like they haven't "discovered" their common sense, yet. It's getting colder, so it's global warming?( I don't use climate change. That's for polititians.) Makes sense to monkeys-and liberals. I gotta go, it's global stupidity time on tv.
Magnetic Ropes
July 26, 2009 - 16:20 ET by slickwillie2001Interesting article about sunspots from about a week ago:
Statistical Sun: http://www.classicalvalues.com
There is hope - People aren't buying it.
July 27, 2009 - 07:08 ET by JohnMcGrewOf course, this is just another example of the near 100% propaganda saturation that has been taking place in the media regarding AGW. (I’m also a “Deadliest Catch” fan) I am ceaselessly amused by how many ways the AGW propagandists have found to insert this theme into irrelevant orcontradictory topics.
But there is a bright spot: After years of this long-soak of propaganda, surveys show that less than half of Americans have bought into AGW, and those who have will question their beliefs after a few more cool summers and frigid winters. The final nail for them will likely be after cap-n-tax will make heating homes unaffordable, and the folly of the political agenda will become personal to millions of Americans.
Windmills galore. Having
July 27, 2009 - 10:32 ET by BuffNBoneWindmills galore.
Having watched several stages of the Tour de France I was struck by the many large scale windmills shown during the coverage. Since I didn't watch every hour I may have missed shots of Nuke power plants but I doubt that is the case. If they did, please illuminate me.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"