Global warming makes heat waves the new normal

WASHINGTON — Following a furious thunderstorm on Sunday, the temperature here dropped more than ten degrees, allowing residents of the capital city to venture outdoors again. After several brutal days with the thermostat hovering near triple digits, temps in the mid-to-high eighties felt downright balmy.

From what I’ve been reading about climate change, though, we’d better get used to miserable, scorching summers. We can stop using the term “heat wave” to describe what will become a routine pattern of high temperatures, overtaxed electricity grids and epidemics of heat strokes.

According to NASA, all but one of the ten hottest years on record were since 1999. The agency expects this year to be the planet’s hottest.

Still, the fierce heat wasn’t enough to coax a vote on pricing carbon emissions through the Senate. While rightwing know-nothings like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) used the blizzards that blanketed the city last winter to claim global warming is a hoax, Republicans just ignored the summer heat wave — preferring to cast a price on carbon emissions as a job-killing “tax.”

The legislation was abandoned by even Lindsay Graham and John McCain, who had once supported putting a price on carbon emissions. (By the way, climatologists said last winter’s unusual snow was a sign of global warming, which leaves more moisture in the atmosphere.)

There were Democrats, as well, who had no enthusiasm for legislation that would force producers of dirty energy to pay for their carbon emissions. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D- W. Va.), for example, wanted to protect his state’s coal mines.

The “tax” argument had also surfaced in the House, although a cap-and-trade bill passed there last June, largely along party lines. U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) was still raging against the bill last month, claiming that it would boost electric rates so high that the elderly wouldn’t be able to afford air conditioning.

“A lot of old people in Georgia and Florida and all out throughout the Southeast and the Southwest are dependent on air conditioning just to live. And if their electricity bills go sky high . . . people are gonna die because of that,” Broun, a physician, said.

So has the death of cap-and-trade relieved Broun of his worry about the elderly and hypothermia? It shouldn’t. According to The Washington Post, high temperatures claim more lives in the United States than tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined — about 700 a year.

Unlike Inhofe and Broun, thinking conservatives don’t dismiss climate change as junk science or a liberal conspiracy. Instead, many of them prefer to cast a preferred solution — pricing carbon emissions — as worse than the changes wrought by global warming. Some of them even contend that a warmer earth will produce an agricultural bounty that will result in increased global prosperity.

The Pentagon doesn’t think so. The nation’s military leaders now list climate change as a national security threat because it will increase global instability. The CNA Corp., a Pentagon-funded think tank, warned in a 2007 report that global warming will spark wars over water, crop failures and massive movements of refugees across borders.

The industrial West may suffer those forces only indirectly, but less pleasant summers won’t be the only consequence for Americans. Climatologists predict more severe weather — more powerful and more dangerous hurricanes, more violent rainstorms, and both floods and more droughts,

Fiscal conservatives have tended to cast the battle against government debt as a crusade to save their children and grandchildren from crushing taxes. They’re right to worry about rising red ink.

But we ought to worry at least as much about a warming planet’s effects on the lives of our children and grandchildren. The consequences could be much more severe than higher taxes.

147 comments Add your comment

Drawing Black Lines

July 28th, 2010
8:15 am

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
8:16 am

I’ll make the popcorn, but I am not sharing with the flat-earthers.

Tommy Maddox

July 28th, 2010
8:20 am

There seems to be a revolving door of reoccurring themes around here.

Drawing Black Lines

July 28th, 2010
8:20 am

CT—

I grew up in the D.C. area. 100 degree weather is nothing new. Try again.

andygrd

July 28th, 2010
8:20 am

Have to agree with you, I think we need to face the facts, and we need to change our life style.

I mean, when they wanted to put wind turbines off of Hyannis Port, it was defeated, because it would mess up the view of the Kennedy’s…. Or Al Gores home in TN, which consumes more power than 10 of his neighbors combined….

No special interest groups…. Let’s make the change with sound programs that work….

This is just too good to pass up… And this is leadership….

President Obama turns down an invitation to speak at the Boy Scouts’ 100th anniversary Jamboree to travel to New York to sit down with the ladies of ‘The View’.

Peadawg

July 28th, 2010
8:20 am

The Sun bully is coming. The Sun bully is coming. Run Forrest run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

barking frog

July 28th, 2010
8:21 am

An agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac will stay up all night wondering if there is a dog.
Climate change scientists will keep company determining if the earth is heating
up, cooling down or both.

Chaps

July 28th, 2010
8:22 am

the Southern hemisphere is having record cold with peru and Chile having over 400 dead. I guess the Southern hemisphere is exempt from global warming. When we had record cold and snow last winter, it was “just weather” not climate. Can’t have it both ways, Cynthia.

Drawing Black Lines

July 28th, 2010
8:23 am

Granny

I see the name calling begins with you today. Nothing new.

I'm here from the government and I'm here to help

July 28th, 2010
8:27 am

Tax the weather? Why not Obama has already Taxed white people. Let’s Tax our pets next. Or how about a Tax on political commentators? Name a tax CT doesn’t like?

Azazel

July 28th, 2010
8:28 am

Well, maybe there is intelligent design — the planet is trying to get rid of us

Dave R.

July 28th, 2010
8:30 am

Global warming causing more snowstorms makes about as much sense as raising taxes in a recession helping to reduce the deficit.

The earth may be getting warmer, but the data is about as flawed as the logic in any Cynthia Tucker column. But as yet no one has made the case that it is man that is behind any rise in temperatures (except in the deliberate placement of sensors in known “hot spots”).

nelsonhoward

July 28th, 2010
8:33 am

You are soooooo right, it is global warming. The solution is reducing CO2 emissions. That is, of course, that the earth has not already reached the “tipping point” the point where the warming cannot be ameliorated and keeps heating up. Endlessly renewable source of clean energy is the answer, wind power. Wind turbines produce energy for pennies a kilowatt hour.Surprising, with the global survival hanging in the balance, wind turbines have great resistance. People find them aesthetically displeasing to the eye. Around the Great Lakes the selfish, rich, inbred summer residents take every tiny little issue with wind turbines to court. Clean air and environment has had a rough go of it. Out in Montana, the resistance to wind power comes from those that are fearful that the “Sage Grouse” will be inconvenienced and have to move.
One wind turbine the “Nacelle” can provide all the energy needs for 750,000 homes. Think of that, one wind turbine.
President Obama has made clean energy a top priority nad everyone should get on board before the “tipping point.”

martin

July 28th, 2010
8:35 am

If we are suffering from global warming or climate change and it’s from carbon emissions, why don’t we just mandate lower carbon emissions. Why do we have to create some type of carbon credit and make it a commodity so it can be traded for profit and taxed. As I see it, what is being proposed will only families who make less than 45,000 dollars a year. Also, I really believe that this proposal is a scheme to get more revenue to the federal gov’t. Gov’t bureaucrats lust for more and more so they can spend it on whatever they want since they know best anyway.

[...] a lot to celebrate. This week, the US Senate jettisoned its effort to reduce … Global warming makes heat waves the new normal Atlanta Journal Constitution [...]

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
8:37 am

Drawing Black Lines

Forgive me I forget how sensitive you are.

martin

July 28th, 2010
8:37 am

my comment should have said….what is being proposed will only hurt families who make less than 45,000 a year.

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
8:42 am

andygrd

see you took your tabelspoon of Beck this morning

FYI from Steve Benen:

“The president will address the Boy Scouts’ jamboree via a taped message, and he already showed his appreciation for the group by hosting an Oval Office gathering just two weeks ago.”

he continues

“But if we’re going to talk about politics and scouts, it’s worth remembering that Beck and his cohorts are barking up the wrong ideological tree here. Did you ever notice the right’s hostility towards the Girl Scouts?

A few years ago, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family encouraged Christian fundamentalists to steer clear of the Girl Scouts because it made use of the word “God” in its oath optional. Another religious right group complained about the Girl Scouts’ emphasis on “empowerment,” which Robert Knight argued would “steer” girls “into collective action for liberal causes, such as environmentalism.”

There was also the hatchet job Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote for National Review, which claimed, among other things, that that the Girl Scouts are under the sway of radical feminists and lesbians. “There are currently 2.7 million Girl Scouts in the U.S.,” Lopez said. “That’s a lot of liberal feminists to look forward to.”

And the right wants to complain about Obama sending a pre-recorded message to the Boy Scouts? This is evidence of some kind of scout animosity? Please.”

A Girl scout is kind in though word and deed, but you try my patience.

Drawing Black Lines

July 28th, 2010
8:43 am

Granny,

You didn’t bother me. You just typically come across as very smug and you would have us all believe that you have a vast intellectual capacity. I was just simply refuting that idea. Besides, I could have called you “chicken little” for your hysteria, but I’d like to keep things civil. BTW, read slowly and sound out the words.

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
8:44 am

corrections: tablespoon and later thought

back to the coffee pot

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
8:44 am

Drawing Black Lines

Did I say sensitive?

Josh

July 28th, 2010
8:45 am

1975 – The scare was global cooling coming from scientist and the government.
denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

1895: President Global Cleveland warns Ameircans we are entering an ice age.

Headline from New York Times: Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Good Artcile of all the global cooling and heating trends over the last 200 years:

businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Now, when is the liberals going to wake up that they are being hoodwinked by their liberal leaders to control and tax us more?

Road Scholar

July 28th, 2010
8:46 am

So all you marvelous naysayers concerning global warming, what if you are wrong? I know this question has never entered your minds, because you are never wrong.

The report acknowledged that the weather shifts would become more radical, which is happening for all that hide behind the”it was cold last year” mantra. It didn’t say the temperature range would just increase.

Drawing Black Lines: It’s about time you start viewing the world in color!

Keep up the good fight!

July 28th, 2010
8:54 am

But..but…but….it snows so there can’t be global warming. Oh yes…it once hit 105 degrees here so can’t be global warming. Ignore the evidence and the science, because I know better by what I can see. It’s all a science plot except that the scientific evidence is rather conclusive when you exclude the fake science put up by Koch industries and others.

Granny Godzilla

July 28th, 2010
8:54 am

Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho

July 28th, 2010
8:58 am

The climate has been in a constant flux since the beginning of time. Nothing man has done or can do will change that fact. Sorry to spread truth here (it upsets Granny) but it had to be done. Thanks for your time.

JohnnyReb

July 28th, 2010
8:59 am

Ms Tucker, you are right on que. Do you receive emails directly from the White House? Yesterday, Robert Gibbs stated cap and trade taxes are still possible this year, so they are trying to revive a dead issue and you are in there giving help as usual.

There are too many serious questions remaining on cap and trade. The science on global warming has been discredited. I know, you on the left say no to that, but a lot of people remain skeptical. Plus, how did the carbon exchange just happen to end up in Chicago? Do you on the left know that Obama helped get it funded before he was POTUS? Do you know how the people are that will profit from its existence? Do the citizens know that taxes from the exchange would be sent to third world countries? Do citizens know when their electric bills go up that the additional taxes will also be spread to people who wont’ be able to pay their electric bill?

Lastly, why can’t Congress solve this problem without another tax? That is all they know, tax, tax, tax. Personally, I’m sick of all of them, especially the socialist Obama.

kayaker 71

July 28th, 2010
9:02 am

Can’t wait for Bozo and Whoppie to compare notes on how evil the Repubs are and how Bush and Co. were responsible for this present financial crisis, global warming, the plight of the poor, the deficit, the wars in the East and blah, blah, blah. These two pathetic individuals deserve each other. But exposure on some fluff show that is watched by countless fluffers in the morning, mostly female, will no doubt bring him the exposure he needs for the female electorate. Watch carefully how he raises his chin and shows everyone how wise and gracious that he is. Then watch Whoopie have an orgasmic moment (if she still can) and make another Bush comment. Then watch the other ladies laugh knowingly. Pass the phenergan please, I think I am about to be sick.

verboten

July 28th, 2010
9:06 am

But, but, but, the global warming, er, climate change, crowd keep telling us that weather is not climate (and a few months is weather, and not climate–just like record cold and snow last winter was pooh-poohed as “simply weather”).

I for one don’t deny that the globe may be warming (or at least that the climate may be changing), nor even that man may have exacerbated this trend. And I am willing to do my part to help minimize my impact: I telecommute when I can, I minimize my driving (e.g. walk to lunch when I’m at the office), we have a garden, we compost, I drive a car with decent gas mileage (albeit 11 years old–trading the footprint to produce a new car vs the slightly better mileage I could get with my next car, which will be a Jetta TDI), and we’re planning for our retirement house to be as off-grid capable a possible.

On the other hand, the earth has gone through severe climate shifts even within the last few thousand years–none of which were precipitated by man-made pollutants. 11,500 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with 1-mile thick ice sheets. Yet that ice all melted. Why? Was the ice an aberration (no) or was the warming an aberration (no)? What is the earth’s “correct” temperature? If the earth was cooling and glaciers were expanding and the seas retreating (as ice build-up captured more and more water) would these same scientists and politicians be recommending that we burn more stuff to put more CO2 into the atmosphere? Why is water vapor–the #1 grenhouse gas by a 7-1 margin–never mentioned? What caused the medievel warm period when olives last grew in England and Vikings last lived on ther shores of Greenland and silver mine sin Sweden were not covered by glaciers? What caused the subsequent Little Ice Age that saw the Thames freezing solid every winter for 200 years, and farms and villiages in northern latitudes were destryoed by expanding glaciers?

At Copenhagen, AGW crowd lamented sea-level rise: “Just two years ago, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a worst-case scenario rise of 59 centimetres. But the accelerated melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland caused by faster warming means the worst case is now put at 1.2 metres. ” When? By 2200… Current satellite data going back to 1993 has sea-levels rising about 3mm per year. The average, based on a set of tidal measurements over the last 220 years is 2mm/yr. About 8500 years ago the largest lake in the world, Lake Agassiz, which once covered almost half-a-million square kilometers (about 180,000 square miles) of central Canada simply drained, virtually overnight in the geologic timescale, into the Arctic ocean. “The last major shift in drainage occurred about 8,400 calendar years before present (about 7,700 14C years before present). The melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused lake Agassiz to drain nearly completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz contributed an estimated 1 to 3 meters to total post-glacial global sea level rise. Much of the final drainage may have occurred in a very short time, in two or one events, perhaps taking as short as a year.” In India, we find that “Useful data on sea level fluctuations have been collcted during the present expedition. Three wavecut benches were encountered at depths of 11.22 metres, 4.6 metres and 1.34 metres. The proto-historic city was built on the lowest bench, the early historic and the medieval townships on the higher benches. The island of Bet Dwarka, 30 km north of Dwarka, which is also famous as the pleasure resort of Sri Krishna, was connected with the mainland between Otha and Aramda. The reclamation referred to in ancient texts was made in this zone when the sea level was lower 3,500 years ago.” The sea has risen 120m over the last 20,000 years, with virtually all of that rise taking before about 500 years ago. ALl without the help of man.

I’m not against “doing something” and certainly agree that pollution is bad. I’m just not willing to agree that the proposed so-called cap-and-trade legislation is going to do anything about pollution, and if it does have aminor impact on pollution, will it do so without crippling our alreadywounded economy. And further, I think that the cap-and-trade bill expects some magic technology to spring into being simply beucase the bill mandates it–how else to get 65% reduction in emmisions from coal-fired plants (except to shut them down). Why not mandate 500MPG cars (and $1M/year unemployement benefits to stimulate the economy)? So while I’m willing to “do something”, I’m not willing to put my faith in a demonstrably ineffective Government, nor am I willing to live in a cave, naked and eating dirt (but my carbon footprint would be pretty low if I did), nor am I willing to cripple our economy.

verboten

July 28th, 2010
9:08 am

I have some exposure to some of the models used by climate researchers at NOAA. I can tell you, the models are frequently ad hoc and contain numerous fudge factors and corrections to massage the data, throw out outliers, adjust this term during this time period, that term during another time period, etc. Many temperature measurements are based on proxies–e.g. assuming tree rings are wider during higher temperatures, but there’s simply no way to determine how much wider per degree C, nor whether

I’m not saying that their models are wrong, just that I understand enough of the math, and have implemented models like these before, to know that a minor mistake in a fudge factor meant to allow dissimilar measurements to be used as if they were from the same dataset can make a huge difference in the validity of the model. Not to mention simple errors in implementation that can have the results “look right” but still be completely wrong.

For example consider the story told by the data that turned out to be wrong. wattsupwiththat dot com/2009/08/27/spencer-noaa%E2%80%99s-official-sea-surface-temperature-product-ersst-has-spurous-warming/

In this case, they found out that their ERSST model was producing warmer, by about 0.2C, results than other instruments. It turned out that in 2001, the satellite providing the data was boosted to a different orbit, and the model failed to take that into account. It took 10 years before anyone thought that there might be a problem! Up until then, everyone apparently assumed the earth had warmed by 0.2C suddenly in 2001. Worse, they assumed that the data for 1971-200 was wrong and massaged it to fit the 2001+ data. “In early 2001, CPC was requested to implement the 1971–2000 normal for operational forecasts. So, we constructed a new SST normal for the 1971–2000 base period and implemented it operationally at CPC in August of 2001″ (Journal of Climate).

Just the abstract to that particular paper reveals how fragile the models are, nbeing based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions, and unveiling a tendency to massage data.

www dot ncdc dot noaa dot gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/xue-etal.pdf

“SST predictions are usually issued in terms of anomalies and standardized anomalies relative to a 30-yr normal: climatological mean (CM) and standard deviation (SD). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests updating the 30-yr normal every 10 yr.”

How can a normal be updated–the data is the data, and its normal is its normal? This sentence implies that the data is somehow massaged every ten years or so. There may be legitimate reasons to do so, but anytime you massage data, there have to be questions as to the legitmacy of the alteration.

“Using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) on a 28 grid for 1854–2000 and the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and SST dataset (HadISST) on a 18 grid for 1870–1999, eleven 30-yr normals are calculated, and the interdecadal changes of seasonal CM, seasonal SD, and seasonal persistence (P) are discussed.”

This says that data is being assembled from widely disparate data sources, with different measurement techniques, and that some of the data was made with instrumentation that simply cannot be validated (data from 1854?).

“Both PDO and NAO show a multidecadal oscillation that is consistent between ERSST and HadISST except that HadISST is biased toward warm in summer and cold in winter relative to ERSST.”

Now we see that different data sets, ostensibly of the same population, disagree. And the fact that one data set exhibits bias to the extreme (too warm in summer and too cold in winter) raises questions about the proper use of this data. One scientist may be a ble to make a valid claim that the more stable data is in error and “correct” it to be more in line with the more volatile data; another scientist may do the opposite.

Citizen of the World

July 28th, 2010
9:09 am

Road Scholar, the naysayers will never admit they are wrong. When the Southeast is a desert, they will still maintain that human action could not have been the cause. Because you see, the climate is always changing! It has always fluctuated from one extreme to another. Only what they want to ignore is that 1) these changes usually took place over very long periods of time, giving plants and animals an opportunity to adapt, or 2) if they took place quickly, due to cataclysmic event and as they are now in the grand scheme of things, there were mass extinctions.

And as someone else pointed out, there’s a tipping point beyond which any back tracking we may try to do will be futile. We’ll be tilting at windmills that aren’t there because we refused to act when we had the chance.

Too many scientists agree that this is a critical problem that must be addressed and the consequences of inaction are too great to do nothing.

I personally am doing a great deal to reduce my carbon footprint, but I think business and industry should also do what they can — and if it takes government carrot and sticks for them to act, I’m all for that. Even if it costs me.

Cynthia Is Sexy!!

July 28th, 2010
9:12 am

All I could say is Ms Tuckers scampering about in her two piece only makes things a little more hotter.

Drawing Black Lines

July 28th, 2010
9:14 am

Road Scholar

Once again, people like yourself do not listen to the other point of view. Climate cycles exist. They have existed for millions of years and will continue to exist. The idea that the SOLE reason that average temperatures are increasing is due to CFC’s, carbon emissions, and pollution is a FARCE.
To say that it may contribute to the change in climate is something different, which has not been addressed since “Global Warmers” are so extreme.

Here is more important, philosophical point: The climate cycles of years past are seen as “natural” right? Is human involvment or influence unnatural? In other words, if carbon emissions have contributed somewhat to climate cylces, isn’t that just a natural byproduct of life on earth?

Fallguy

July 28th, 2010
9:14 am

In earlier (more prosperous) days we supported our high standard of living with the abundant fossil fuel we dug or pumped out of the ground in our country. And now that that’s not enough, we must buy fuel from our enemies and those who merely hate us for being who we are. The consumption of fossil fuels is not sustainable for two reasons: one – we are no longer producing it only from our own resources and it’s getting harder and harder to find worldwide. Make all the arguments you want about how safe it is to pump oil out of the Gulf, but just like life, on AW-Darn is worth 40 ATTA-BOYS. I feel the country should have a co-coordinated plan that moves us logically and deliberately from fossil fuels to sustainable fuels. The most basic principle of economics is, “If you want less of something – tax it; if you want more of something – subsidize it.” We must tax fossil fuels and we must subsidize alternative forms of energy. And don’t hang this effort on something as nebulous and controversial as “Climate Change,” but rather on freeing ourselves from groveling at the feet of the world for fuel to charge our Ipods and run our TV’s so we can watch, “Dancing with the Stars.”

[...] Global warming makes heat waves the new normalAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)used the blizzards that blanketed the city last winter to claim global warming is a hoax, Republicans just ignored the summer heat wave — preferring to … [...]

verboten

July 28th, 2010
9:16 am

As for DC, its pretty common weather. Perhaps a tad hotter than normal. Wikepedia (I know, I know) says

The highest recorded temperature was 106 °F (41 °C) on July 20, 1930, and August 6, 1918, while the lowest recorded temperature was −15 °F (−26 °C) on February 11, 1899, during the Great Blizzard of 1899.[51][52] Over the year, the city averages 36.7 days hotter than 90 °F (32 °C) and 64.4 nights below freezing.[50]

50^ a b c “Climatography of the United States No. 20 (1971–2000)” (PDF). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. Retrieved 2010-02-14.
51^ a b Watson, Barbara McNaught (1999-11-17). “Washington Area Winters”. National Weather Service. Retrieved 2008-06-03.
52^ a b c “Monthly Averages for Washington, DC – Temperature and Precipitation”. The Weather Channel. Retrieved 2009-08-30.

Scout

July 28th, 2010
9:16 am

Does anyone know how we can get “race” into this issue ?

Cynthia Is Sexy!!

July 28th, 2010
9:16 am

There are plenty of fossil fuels to go around. Dont be fooled.

andygrd

July 28th, 2010
9:18 am

Granny,

I don’t care for Beck, nor do I watch his TV show. For you see, the majority of TV shows on Fox , MSNBC and CNN are purely entertainment for the uneducated masses. They really serve no purpose other than to spread falsehoods… However, since you brought up Beck, I guess you are one of the die hard whining Liberals that really watch the program.. How else would you know what he said…..

WOW.. a taped interview versus live on the View… Let me see, an organization that is celebrating 100 years of existence, serving the Children… I can see how a taped statement would have more impact than the President actually showing up… Much more important to show up on the View…. HEHEHE…

And how many young men from the Boy Scotts were in the oval office…… And attendance on the View is more important why…. Thank you for trying to cloud the issue…

What is the value of showing up on the View…..

Keep up the good fight!

July 28th, 2010
9:19 am

Famous quotes

“Sure there is climate change but it happens…so what? It’s not going to change our way of life” — Unidentified Dinosaur.

J. Kase

July 28th, 2010
9:19 am

Ok, where did I put that….not the healthcare bill…..not the Immigration Reform…..darn, hope mama didn’t find these or I’d be in trouble….nope, not the Wall Reform…oh, here it is: Global Warming>BLAME BUSH. I should have watched the teleprompter all along.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 28th, 2010
9:21 am

Here’s the Idiot Messiah’s cap-and-tax proposal in a nutshell: Raise taxes on energy, then rebate the higher taxes to consumers. Sounds really effective to me! The Idiot Messiah gets to claim he’s “doing something” about global warming AND gets to send checks to voters to help himself get re-elected.

Cynthia Is Sexy!!

July 28th, 2010
9:23 am

Ya….Barry on the View…lol. Perhaps he is gonna announce he and Whoopie engagement…LOL.

Michelle will be devastated. Now if Barry were seeing say Condi well then I might have a little respect for him. See AJC pix of Aretha and Condi. She is a sexy one…Condi that is.

Drawing Black Lines

July 28th, 2010
9:27 am

Scout,

Sure. Just get Jesse Jackson to say that carbon emissions turned LeBron James into a “Runaway Slave.”

kimmer

July 28th, 2010
9:27 am

It kills me how the liberal crowd will take a hot spell, a hurricane, or whatever event and start beating the drum about ‘global warming’ but when it turns cold then they declare that you can’t focus on just individual weather events. I’ll tell you what, I will even agree with you that the overall climate is warming but I will not agree that humans have much to do with it. The earth has gone through warming and cooling for millenia and will continue to do so no matter what we do. Ever hear of the little ice age of the 16th-19th century? Did man cause that? Did man also cause the earth to come out of it? No they did not but in the current political atmosphere can you imagine if we were coming out of such a period today?

[...] Global warming makes heat waves the new normalAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)used the blizzards that blanketed the city last winter to claim global warming is a hoax, Republicans just ignored the summer heat wave — preferring to …Casualties mount in the War on Global WarmingCalifornia Independent Voter NetworkCap-And-Trade Advocates See Tougher Battle After ElectionsNew York TimesClimate Bill Chokes in the SenatePolitic365 (blog)Winnipeg Free Press -Boston Globe -Treehuggerall 15 news articles » [...]

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 28th, 2010
9:32 am

The Idiot Messiah’s madrassa in Indonesia didn’t have a Boy Scout troop, so you can understand his indifference to the group’s 100th anniversary.

verboten

July 28th, 2010
9:36 am

nelsonhoward @8:33 am Around the Great Lakes the selfish, rich, inbred summer residents take every tiny little issue with wind turbines to court.

As long as we’re over-generalizing, let me say this is typical asshat liberal Democrat class envy/class warfare response.

I spend summers in a fishing camp my grandparents bought in 1956 on Lake Ontario for the whopping sum of $6K. It has no heat, no AC, and until not too long ago, no running water or septic system, just an outhouse. We hardly qualify as “rich inbred summer residents”.

And for the record, I have supported the various wind farm plans dotting the region and cannot understand the fight against them. And also, the resistance here is almost exclusively from local residents who live near the proposed areas. And a common theme is “why does farmer jones get to make extra money off his 500 acres of pasture while rest of us have to look at and hear the whine of these turbines?”

OTOH, wind power is hardly a consistent source of power.

Scout

July 28th, 2010
9:37 am

Drawing Black Lines @ 9:27

HA ! I think state tax rates did that !

Kamchak

July 28th, 2010
9:39 am

the Southern hemisphere is having record cold with peru and Chile having over 400 dead. I guess the Southern hemisphere is exempt from global warming.

Interesting point and those of us who are not geographically challenged know that in the southern hemisphere the seasons are reversed.

However, since you brought it up—when we were having snowfall last February, there were 32 heat related deaths in Rio de Janeiro during the worst heat wave in 50 years.