Facts are cooling off climate alarmism
It’s an inconvenient time for world leaders to be speechifying about global warming — earlier this week at the United Nations, today and tomorrow at a G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The supposed certainty behind their push for new eco-regulation is melting faster than the Arctic ice.
Global temperatures have held steady for several years, contrary to the expectations of statistical models. This month, a leading German user of these climate models predicted temperatures would fall for “one or two decades” to come.
Why the reprieve? The German, Mojib Latif, cited changing currents in the northern Atlantic Ocean. He even went a step further, saying the currents were also responsible for an unknown portion of the warming in the late 20th century.
Perhaps sensing that a future filled with research grants was about to go up in smoke, Latif hastened to clarify that 20 years of cooling would not mean “global warming [was] disappearing.”
But of course. Only someone in Latif’s line of work would make such a confident prediction about the effects of his very own prediction.
In fact, the value of Latif’s work lies in the uncertainties.
The German seriously undercut the idea that global warming will continue unabated as long as emissions of carbon dioxide rise, a cherished claim of climate alarmists. Nature, he acknowledged, can overwhelm or amplify whatever heating effect CO2 has. We’re still learning how.
There’s more. Writing in the journal Science, a group of scientists has offered a new explanation of how the sun affects the Pacific climate system.
Climate models missed this effect, the scientists said, because they accounted for two different climate mechanisms separately. But the two may work together.
Climate models have missed a lot, including the recent plateauing of temperatures. As with any crystal ball, the people who use them might accurately forecast the future. Or they might not.
The hubris of climate modeling may have been summarized best by Vicky Pope of Britain’s weather authority, the Met Office. “In many ways,” she said at the same conference where Latif made his remarks, “we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year.”
Pope was trying to reaffirm confidence in climate modeling, but her comment would have been better delivered with tongue in cheek. Is there any other subject where we claim to know more about what will happen in the distant future than in the near future?
There are limits to the models that climatologists use with supreme confidence. Climate alarmists are trying to be like the one-armed economist that Harry Truman wished for — one who wouldn’t counter his own opinion by saying, “On the other hand …”
When predicting the future, there’s always another hand.
Now, the Earth’s climate may well change for the worse regardless of what we do. There is a good case to be made for trying to avoid the worst consequences.
But the way to do that is not to regulate our economies to a halt. Instead, we should work to solve problems that might worsen if the atmosphere gets warmer for whatever reason. Adaptation has always been man’s best bet.
This approach has been the very logical campaign of Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg. His Copenhagen Consensus Center periodically enlists top-flight economists to review the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would be beneficial come warming or cooling.
The top priority from the 2008 exercise was increasing poor children’s intake of vitamin A and zinc. Investing in R&D for low-carbon technology ranked 14th out of 30 options — about where it deserves to be.
If only the world leaders in Pittsburgh this week would take such a tack. But that would mean they had forgone granting new regulatory power to themselves.
In other words, don’t hold your exhalation of CO2.
Note: Commenting is closed on this entry.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
130 comments Add your comment
godless heathen
September 23rd, 2009
9:18 pm
Now, now Kyle, don’t be throwing water on the dreams of those that are positioned to make mega-bucks off of “Climate Change”. Like GE (owner of NBC and Barack Obama) and various companies that Al Gore is invested in.
Art at Large
September 23rd, 2009
9:26 pm
Yet another republican who says that global warming is not a danger, a threat, or a possibility.
Mankind can, you say, adapt to living on a ruined planet, although that is not exactly how YOU put it.
If mankind can adapt to rising sea levels, more severe weather events that occur more often, and the demolition of the food chain due to mass extinctions, why couldn’t man adapt in a much more positive way?
Mankind could adapt to living with energy sources other than fossil fuels like gas and coal. We could adapt to ending the destruction of the rain forest as it is cut and burned down to provide grazing areas for cattle destined to become McDonald’s hamburger patties. We could adapt to halting mountain-top removal in the search for the dirtiest energy resource we currently have, coal.
We could adapt to raising windmill farms, photo-voltaic farms, and we could anchor buoys offshore that use the kinetic energy of waves to generate electricity.
Know where else we could adapt? We could finally look beyond the ends of our noses, or beyond our wallets, in an effort to NOT HAVE TO adapt to a ruined planet.
You are just another in a long line of conservatives who whine about the projected economic cost of preventing global warming, but you seem to have no thought or clue or intention to consider the economic costs of a ruined planet where wars will be fought over natural resources like water and arable farmland. Not a word about the cost of food riots, massive droughts that re-create the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s, or about the millions of children, elderly, impoverished, and simply unfortunate people who will die of disease, starvation, dehydration, and war.
What will happen to your Almighty Dollar then? Granted, there will be massive profits to be made in both legitimate and black markets selling water, food, guns, and the like…survival tools.
But you are instead willing to consign millions to the mass grave of history just because YOU happen to think that controlling global warming will be too expensive. You want EXPENSIVE?
Go ahead and cheer for the destruction of the planet instead.
See what that gets you, you fool.
warmhandcoldheart
September 23rd, 2009
9:46 pm
Suppose global warming or global cooling were caused by man. Which it isn’t. How does putting a tax on just about everything help solve the problem? I want to see Al Gore do a remake of his cartoon movie. This time with his teeth chattering as he is explaining how the ice cap is still melting even though the temperatures have dropped four degrees.
warmhandcoldheart
September 23rd, 2009
9:51 pm
Hey Art at Large. Answer…..One nuclear power plant and we don’t need the windmills and tidal wave generators.
David Axelfraud
September 23rd, 2009
10:11 pm
As a native Chicagoan, I welcome global warming. I want it to be hot instead of it being 7 below zero in December. I always make fun of green peace idiots out on Michigan Ave who want to have a conversation about global warming while wiping frozen snot off their pale skinny chain smoking faces.
Tall
September 23rd, 2009
10:14 pm
Art at Large: Broadcasting invective like that generates a lot of CO2. What if all of this really is caused by sunspot activity? I think you’re just a shill for one of the AJC editorial board members.
Tall
September 23rd, 2009
10:18 pm
David:
I used to have clients in Chicago and Milwaukee and I always called on them in late January or early February. There was never any competition for there attention at that time of year. I always stayed at the Tremont Hotel. One year, I took a walk down to Lake Michigan in 0 degree weather. Chicago really is a nice place to visit, but…..
Casey
September 23rd, 2009
10:21 pm
Even with the assumption that global warming is not man-made, and even that global warming doesn’t exist at all, it is a good idea for mankind to find any way possible to stop burning up non-renewable resources. We’re going to run out of oil and coal eventually, so we might as well make the switch to cleaner renewable energies now.
David Axelfraud
September 23rd, 2009
10:24 pm
Tall, Chicago is a nice place to live if you can get past the corruption, high taxes and crazy liberals. The winters are annoyingly long and can be brutal. It gets old after the first 6 months of winter.
Richard
September 23rd, 2009
10:32 pm
This might be the dumbest argument in history and a prime example of how politicians have lost sight of reality.
Who cares if global warming is man made or not? Why not just stop putting TOXIC gases into our air supply?
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 24th, 2009
12:35 am
I have no problem with trying to make the world a cleaner place. If you want to cut CO2 emissions, fine. Pass standards, enforce them, fine those who don’t comply. No one has yet made me understand why we need to create a new cap and trade industry where some people can get rich shuffling paper that basically does nothing. You’d think the fianancial meltdown would have taught us a thing or two about that. I see cap and trade as nothing more than a way for some people to buy their way out of compliance and for some others to make big bucks doing it.
Seems to me they’ve come up with a complicated solution for a simple problem. You want to cut emissions, cut emissions.
And I agree we need to find a renewable source of energy. Even if the entire center of the earth were nothing but oil, it would still run out someday. That’s the definiton of a finite resource.
HSR0601
September 24th, 2009
2:37 am
= The sky in Beijing & climate change =
We need to siege the last chance for economic growth !!
1. About two thirds of deficit in the U.S. accrue from oil import.
In this economy, fuel price is hovering around $65 to $75 a barrel, which highlights the actual value might be much the same as the peak price last year, and it will continue to spiral up unquestionably.
2. As with “Inaction” cost, $9trillion over the next decade in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, supposedly the same is of inaction on the 21st energy bill to determine war & peace, catastrophe & prosperity. For the global economy to reign in the runaway price of fossil fuels, “Sustainable Option” will be indispensable.
3. Looking to worthless, painful and wasteful oil wars, namely, the “Original Source” of this great recession, to waste time bickering over meaningless things and drag feet on a defining energy bill are sure to shake the embryonic effect of stimulus package that is an interim measure for build-out of a new foundation.
4. As the overall oil reserve in Middle East, let alone the rest of oil-producing areas, is on the decline more than known, the region blessed with affluent sun rays also needs to ready for a new groundwork, particularly in this context AEU is beginning to concentrate on future energy and Iranian EV is rolling out recently, the countries in the region will never stand still on the occupation, that means no matter what the result is, the repetitious mistake at the cost of invaluable lives and gigantic spending will end up with a heartbreaking tragedy once again.
5. Facing a sharp downturn in fossil fuels all over the world, the world-wide overpopulation growing consistently is using up tremendous fossil fuels at an alarming pace. Especially when the own conventional resources in some dense countries is facing drastic dent, it adds up explicitly.
6. For that reason, it is widely accepted that the price of fossil fuels is expected to go up and up simply, which is behind all but major states taking a bold and speedy action in a bid to put the global economy on a sustainable and solid ground.
7. Thankfully and interestingly enough, 100s of Companies (with $13 Trillion) Are Demanding Strong Climate Deal in Copenhagen just like environmental activists, a coalition of more than 500 Global Businesses is also demanding ambitious new climate deal, and the report by Blair and the Climate Group, a London-based nonprofit organization, found a climate-change accord among all countries would spur economic growth and create as many as 10 million jobs by 2020.
8. Currently, a 21st energy bill has passed the House and is making its way through Senate. According to CBO, this bill known as more progressive generally would trim budget deficit by $24.4 billion of a net gain.
9. I think the world is eagerly looking forward to Americans’ participation, and if it were not for world-wide massive job creation, the world can not pull the economy out of this recession successfully.
10. I’d say only science and innovation can meet this challenge, and the science enough for all around the globe to live in harmony is awaiting final assembly by way of innovation. It seems to me that this great recession is pitching us a serious lesson to make sure we build a bridge for future generations, otherwise, our generation, too, is falling off the cliff.
Thank You !
DeborahinAthens
September 24th, 2009
6:48 am
Kyle, when my cherry tree blooms in December we have an abnormally warm climate. Since this only started happening within the last five years, it appears that something has drastically changed. One only has to look at old family photos at certain times of the year to see how early the trees and shrubs are leafing out and blooming. And, besides, even if global warming was NOT the issue, what on earth do you have against cleaning up our environment? When you have such a high percentage of people with asthma doesn’t that tell you something? Why NOT make the utility companies clean up their stacks? Why not make cars that are more fuel efficient, simply because it makes our lives better? In the end, if we can’t breath the air or drink the water, does it matter if our corporations can make a few extra bucks?
Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST
September 24th, 2009
6:51 am
Saxby will be voting for Cap & Trade, it is full of ETHANOL subsidies and MY job depends on his vote.
Buzz G
September 24th, 2009
7:23 am
This global warming thing is the dumbest thing I have seen in my lifetime (I am old and retired). Someday our grandchildren will look back on this time and laugh at how stupid we were to believe that the earth was going to melt because of man-made CO2. The computer models that these scientists put together aren’t worth the expense. The term we used to use for computer models that were nonsense was GIGO, which stood for garbage in, garbage out. It’s funny, when Exxon funded climate change research, people jumped up and proclaimed it unreliable because Exxon money would corrupt the results. But those same people never figured out that Government money corrupts just as much as Exxon money. I suspect these researchers know that if they stood up and said there was no global warming, the government research grants would end and they would be standing in the unemployment line.
Edward
September 24th, 2009
8:05 am
I want Kyle Wingfield and all his cronies to be forced to live under a smokestack somewhere, preferably in a toxic waste dump. Let his children run around in the muck. Oh, wait, he doesn’t want that, he just wants someone else’s children to have to endure that, right? If you can’t afford to live in a nice neighborhood then, well, you don’t deserve good health and clean air, huh?
People like Wingfield, who’s goals in life are based purely on greed, will hopefully suffer because of that eventually.
Ben
September 24th, 2009
8:12 am
Is it possible that global warming exists? Yes. That it’s man-made? Maybe. That it’s natural? Maybe?
None of that really matters. We should do what we can to reduce pollution anyway, but not at the cost of our economy. We need to move slowly to change our habits, and not force new laws that destroy our economy, which many fo the global warming activists seem to want to do.
There’s a giant bloom of plastic floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and another in the Atlantic. We need to stop adding to that, and figure out how to clean it up. And those are things we can do, over time, slowly but with determination. Few people are going to have a problem with reducing pollution, so long as it doesn’t adversely affect the economy and our lifestyles. And I think we can do that. What we don’t need to do is react with a bunch of new laws that create unintended consequences and destroy our economy (worse than it already is).
Churchill's MOM
September 24th, 2009
8:33 am
godless heathen
9:18 pm
GE is not getting a good return from owning Obama, he opposes GE’s 2nd Engine program for the F35. Obama says he will veto this waste of taxpayer money.
William
September 24th, 2009
8:37 am
Art at Large
September 23rd, 2009
9:26 pm
You said we have a ruined planet! Where did you get this bogus information whacko? Is this a concensus or a fact? I just saw a discussion on plantet warming by numerous scientists and we have been getting cooler according to their studies. Do you pick your studies? This study does not support my agenda so I will ignore it but this study sayS pollutants are being emitted slightly higher so I will us it for global warming. Is this how you do it? I bet you just pull up data from you speical interest groupS who provide mis-information to uphold their agenda.
Everyone wants clean water and air! But you whackos have starved an oil based economy with false information or at least unproved information in an effort to make everyone live like you want them to live. Go to H&**! I will not do that! However you have succeeded in costing the American worker billions of dollars needed to simply make ends meet. Like Joe Wilson said,” YOU LIE!”.
Churchill's MOM
September 24th, 2009
8:38 am
Wingboy, 2 good Conservative editorials in a row, I’m proud of you but when are you going to get after our RINO congressmen?
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
9:05 am
William,
Please provide some proof for your claim. Otherwise, you are merely blowing hot air, like a smokestack.
hryder
September 24th, 2009
9:07 am
A microview of ramifications of climate alarmism has occurred with so many Chicken Littles seeking recognition as the leading authority that one does not have to do anything until another CL debunks, through scientific fact or the passing of time with no earth ending event, the pontification of the next saviour. What is necessary is the macroview of the world considering all possible slants and effects on the world’s weather and that is impossible since even an extraterrestial alien would possess bias due to bias from their source of existence and modes of communication. In short, people need to find another topic to seek recognition as “numero uno”. Which means Al Gore is and will probably always be a whining Johnny come lately second banana.
The Anti-Wooten
September 24th, 2009
9:08 am
I’ve decided not to no longer care.
An acquaintance of mine with a degree in ecology from a major university not located in the south, says that he gets miffed each time that he hears the term global warming. His contention is that it should be called “global chaos and who knows what will come next”.
Kyle asserts that changes in North Atlantic currents are responsible for recent cooling. Clearly Kyle has not been paying attention to any information other than what fits his tidy, small minded agenda. Those that are actually knowledgeable on the subject have been discussing what would happen if the thermohaline conductor currents begin to change. For those that haven’t been paying attention, here’s what could happen:
Fresh water melt alters the density of sea water in the N Atlantic and other sea zones.
The “elevators” of the ocean current system slow or stop as the density of the water changes.
Circulation of water from areas such as the Gulf of Mexico slows resulting in much warmer water in those areas and much colder waters in the N Atlantic.
New Ice Age.
Now I realize that this is only one of dozens or millions of possible scenarios but since I don’t have children, I don’t care anymore. I wish this pox upon all of your children because those of you that aren’t paying deserve it.
Me
September 24th, 2009
9:09 am
Edward:
You’re right about that. kind of reminds you of Ted Kennedy and his desire for someone else to have to endure the sight of windmills, doesn’t it?
The Anti-Wooten
September 24th, 2009
9:10 am
I’ve decided not to no longer care…yikes what was I thinking.
Should have been “I’ve decided to no longer care”.
Ben
September 24th, 2009
9:13 am
That’s the thing, Dunwoody Mike. Where’s the proof that global arming is man made and not a natural occurence? There’s no smoking gun, heck there may not even be actual warming. Show me YOUR proof before you and your like minded fellows destroy the economy and the future of humanity by crippling our energy resources.
You know what’s really expensive? Destroying the economy and killing (indirectly) millions, even billions of people, and then finding out that it wasn’t man made at all, and all our efforts and suffering were for naught.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
9:24 am
Edward, I want you to live in North Korea so that you can experience the wonderful world of communism you so truly adore.
On a better note: So much for Carville and Bookmans assertion that the GOP is dead. Morons.
Independents desert Obama, putting 2010 in play
By: Chris Stirewalt
The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the Rolls-Royce of public surveys, showed that for the first time, independents disapproved of the president’s performance, 46 percent to 41 percent.
More shocking is that independent voters now favor a Republican-controlled Congress by a four-point margin and would overwhelmingly like to see their own member of the House replaced.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
9:31 am
Kyle, when you came on board to the AJC, did it ever occur to you that Bookman and Cynthia Tucker have caused a lot of hatred for the AJC?
My point is this. Bookman and Tucker, over the last 5 years, have caused more readers to cancel their subscriptions. How do I know this? Simple, when I lived in Georgia I used to help out with newspaper deliveries when I was in school. I had a few friends who went door to door all over the metro counties trying to sell newspapers. Seven of my friends did a little experiment. What they did was keep a tally of why people canceled their subscriptions vs. people who kept them.
Out of the people who canceled their subscriptions, 250 people said that they canceled it because of Cynthia Tucker. 139 said that they canceled theirs because of Jay Bookman. And get this, 390 people canceled because of BOTH of them. Now I know that doesn’t sound like a lot of people but in my friends districts of sales, that was the entire AJC circulation of subscriptions.
Now, another interesting point: The majority of people who kept their subscriptions dropped their 7 day subscriptions and went with the weekend edition. WHY? Because they wanted the coupons. The rest of the newspaper went into the garbage can. They also complained about most of the newspaper itself being coupons and sales ads. No news.
Just thought you should know.
Bob
September 24th, 2009
9:41 am
The green angle is just that. An angle. A marketing gimmick. Another way for Obozo and his gang of socialist thugs to rape more out of the US Treasury. GE is thick like thieves with it.
And the stupid is very strong with the AJC. Bookman and Tucker post their inane “journalism”, comment with their multiple aliases, and censor the comments that prove their “journalism” wrong. Then they present the garbage as “news”. When the last Cox sister croaks the AJC will be a tax write-off the heirs will no longer play with.
pd
September 24th, 2009
9:48 am
The Global Warming issue has really clouded the overall situation.
Whether these models are correct or not, we should ALL be in agreement that we want to reduce air pollution. I don’t need any scientist to tell me that the air is polluted. I can see it clearly with the naked eye over the sky line of Atlanta.
Likewise with our rivers and streams.
Lets just all agree to try to pollute less. Buy local when possible. Avoid products with excess packaging. ect…
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
9:53 am
Bob, yep. Bookman has a very very thin skin. He was never fit for the world of journalism. It’s ok, on his blog, to make fun of Palin, Limbaugh, Bush, Reagan and other republican/conservatives but if one trashes a democrat he bans you. Bookman and Tucker are both “copy and paste” op-ed writers who rehash the same tired stories and opinions over and over again.
Bookman: I hate Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh is fat and is addicted to drugs. George Bush is stupid. Reagan was not nearly as good of a president as Jimmy Carter.
Tucker: White people are evil. All black people are victims of white oppression. George Bush hates black people. Barack Obama is the messiah. The Bible is an old book of fairy tales(not kidding, she wrote that once), and so on and so forth.
I saw Cynthia Tucker on Hardball last week. She was on tv saying that Carter was essentially right about people who disagree with Obama as being racist. The race card is the only thing Cynthia has in her life. Makes me wonder if the AJC has threatened to fire her before only to find that she would sue out of racism. Sad woman.
Bookman and Tucker do not care about facts. They don’t weigh both sides and yet they get angry when people call them out for what they are.
Cynthia, just last week, had a blog on Communist China and how we should be like them. ????????
China is one of the worst places on earth for humanity.
Joan
September 24th, 2009
10:00 am
Just use common sense, and try not to pollute. But if we think America alone will stop global warning (on the assumption there is any validity to the thesis at all) we are nuts. We are a drop in the bucket compared to China and many other countries. And about energy efficiency–bring on the nuclear plants. I mean if a nuclear plant blows in any other country, we are going to feel the effects anyway. So, why can’t we take advantage of the clean energy it can create?
jconservative
September 24th, 2009
10:01 am
Global warming, global warming, global warming. I have been hearing that most of my adult life – about 50 years. Science does not understand the climate or how the earth actually works. There are plenty of hypotheses but no theories. Just not enough evidence.
Does global warming exist? What causes it? Does man have an effect?
Can science give us a cure? If science gave us a cure would we have the political will to use the cure? The answer to the the first four questions is “we do not know.” The answer to the last question is a resounding “NO”.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:05 am
For anyone who wants to piss of a liberal. Especially Bookman.
Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.
“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”
During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year–2010–more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.
Elephant Whip
September 24th, 2009
10:05 am
My family has lived in East Cobb County for about 34 years. 20 to 30 years ago, there was serious sticking snow every year at least once or twice, and, in addition, light dustings and flurries.
Now it’s maybe one ice storm.
We also used to get into the single digits or negatives regularly in January and February. Now we rarely get to freezing, much less 0.
Now there is much more asphalt, subdivisions, and traffic.
This to me represents regional warming. Why wouldn’t a global building/gas emission/population boom cause this on a global scale?
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:07 am
Does anyone else think it strange that the people who applauded Obama are gutless dictators of third world countries?
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:12 am
Elephant Whip, Georgia has always had crazy weather. The south isn’t exactly the North Pole. I used to live in Atlanta and I can not remember the last time I had on a sweater in December. January and February are usually rainy and cold but rarely ever in the single digits. I don’t even think the “blizzard” of 93 dipped down below 20 degrees. If you want cold, move up here to Chicago. It will be cold in November with snow and ice.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:14 am
More bad news for democrats.
59% Say Americans Angrier Now Than Under Bush
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters believe that the current level of political anger in the country is higher than it was when George W. Bush was president.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 22% think the level of political anger is lower now, while 16% rate it as about the same.
Despite frequent Republican complaints about the vitriol leveled at President Bush, 69% of GOP voters say the level of anger is higher now, a view shared by 53% of Democrats and 56% of voters not affiliated with either party.
But just 12% of voters nationwide say that the opposition to President Obama’s health care plan and other initiatives is racist, as some prominent Democrats, including former President Jimmy Carter, have charged.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of all voters say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government, including 36% who are Very Angry.
Among those voters who are Very Angry, 74% say the level of anger is higher now, while 13% say it’s lower and 12% say it’s about the same.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2009/59_say_americans_angrier_now_than_under_bush
Elephant Whip
September 24th, 2009
10:15 am
Does anyone else think it strange that George Senior, Rumsfeld, and George Junior shook hands with Saudis? That Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam?
Does anyone else think it strange that Bush did nothing about Saudi Arabia even though almost all of the 911 hijackers were from there, but instead started pounding dirt in Afghanistan, followed by an illegitimate war on non-nuclear, non-terrorist Iraq?
Elephant Whip
September 24th, 2009
10:17 am
Axel:
I’ve lived here for 34 years. I wouldn’t call Georgia weather crazy. And I think I have a better basis for my observations. You stick to Chicago. Actually, why don’t you save your blog for Chicago?
Partisay
September 24th, 2009
10:22 am
Looks like Beck, Hannity & Rush’s anti-government rhetoric is working according to plan:
MANCHESTER, Ky. — When Bill Sparkman told retired trooper Gilbert Acciardo that he was going door-to-door collecting census data in rural Kentucky, the former cop drew on years of experience for a warning: “Be careful.”
The 51-year-old Sparkman was found this month hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery with the word “fed” scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.
The most deadly attack on federal workers came in 1995 when the federal building in Oklahoma City was devastated by a truck bomb, killing 168 and injuring more than 680. Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for the bombing, carried literature by ultra-right-wing, anti-government authors.
The Republican party has blood on their hands……………………..
jconservative
September 24th, 2009
10:25 am
Picking up on the thoughts of HSR0601.
The US really needs to get off its duff and handle the dependence on outside the border energy sources. We have oil, natural gas, coal, sun, wind, ocean currents, nuclear & geothermal – just to name a few off the top of my head. Yet we remain dependent on foreign governments.
The question is why we do nothing. Why do we do nothing?
Apparently the following are more important than the future existence of the USA:
Right to choose – right to life – Obama birthplace – Cheney lying – ACORN – torturing – RINOs – racist – etc, etc, etc.
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
10:30 am
A two second Google search provided this link:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
And NOAA does NOT have a political agenda, they report the bloody weather. Just wanted to say that before the global warming deniers get their pants in a wad over objectivity.
Chris Broe
September 24th, 2009
10:31 am
Point of order. A potted plant like Lyle Kingfield exhales oxygen, not CO2.
Google: Planet Formation
F-105 Thunderchief
September 24th, 2009
10:33 am
Global warming or not, it is still in our nation’s best interest to lead the world in development and marketing of renewable energy technology. It would secure our economic future and our national security, as we rely less and less on foreign oil to power our economy.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:33 am
Elephant Whip wrote: I’ve lived here for 34 years. I wouldn’t call Georgia weather crazy. And I think I have a better basis for my observations. You stick to Chicago. Actually, why don’t you save your blog for Chicago?
I lived in Georgia for 26 years. I would call Georgia weather crazy. Georgia can get all seasons in one weeks time. And I think I have a better basis for my observations.
Save my blog for Chicago? What blog would that be?
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:36 am
Partisay, what literature did McVeigh have on him? I mean, the unibomber had a copy of Al Gores book on his nightstand. Does that mean Al Gore made him blow up people? Your logic is misguided and stupid.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:38 am
jconservative, have you been asleep for the last 2 years? MANY people want us to drill here and provide our own energy sources. Its the democrats and environmental groups that keep us from drilling here. ANWR, Gulf Coast, Montana and North Dakota all have TONS of oil we could be drilling for.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:39 am
F-105 Thunderchief, the biggest obstacle is environmentalists. Go talk to them and see where you get. Talk to Nancy Pelosi about drilling our own oil. Good luck.
F-105 Thunderchief
September 24th, 2009
10:45 am
No, there are plenty of obstacles on all political fronts, Axelfraud.
pat
September 24th, 2009
10:58 am
Never has so much money been spent and so much legislation been made on something that has so little basis in fact. The Earth warms and cools in cycles just like it has for billions of years. Sometimes it does it fast sometimes it does it slow. Those ARE the facts.
There is no clean energy. Solar and wind ruin ecology and take up huge swaths of land. The battery packs in hybrids are highly toxic, etc. All “green” energy is, is pollution transfer. It moves the pollution of of sight, but it is still there.
Partisay
September 24th, 2009
11:10 am
Axelfraud, the report of right wind literature did not come from me, but rather the AP story. Here’s more:
Much has been made of the fact that within 80 minutes of the bomb exploding, McVeigh was picked up for a traffic violation by State Trooper Charlie Hanger, who had no idea that a building had just been destroyed some miles away. On the passenger seat of McVeigh’s car was a big folder stuffed with right-wing literature. He hoped this would be released to the media and his political message would get out immediately, but Hanger left the envelope and took him in on charges of carrying a concealed weapon.
Now, about your comment that “my logic was misguided and stupid”….in what way? For months, he handed out anti-government literature at gun shows. Are you denying he was anti government? The AP article simply stated he “carried literature by ultra-right-wing, anti-government authors.” That’s the facts. There is no “logic” to it. Other than he was a right winger who hated government.
And that’s starting to sound very familiar these days.
Do the Math
September 24th, 2009
11:14 am
Why not stop supporting OPEC countries and start supporting the USA?
Kyle Wingfield
September 24th, 2009
11:27 am
Pretty good discussion going on here. I’ll make three points.
1) Carbon dioxide is neither toxic nor a pollutant in the strict sense of those words…that’s just a rhetorical device of the anti-global warming crowd. It’s a naturally occurring substance that is believed to trap heat in the atmosphere. So is water vapor, but I don’t think anyone calls water vapor a toxin or a pollutant. Talking about CO2 as a pollutant and treating global warming as our most important environmental problem only detract from efforts to eliminate real pollutants and solve more pressing environmental problems.
2) Alternative energy sources might be low-carbon, but they don’t necessarily have to be. If the goal is using fewer foreign energy sources because that’s in the national interest, shouldn’t any source — e.g., domestic oil — be considered, regardless of whether it reduces CO2 emissions?
3) And regarding dependence on foreign countries: The U.S. produces about 1/3 of the crude oil we consume. The other 2/3 is pretty evenly divided between a) Canada and Mexico (which I wouldn’t consider hostile to us), b) OPEC members, and c) all other countries. No country besides Canada, Venezuela (which is hostile to us) and Mexico accounts on its own for more than 10% of our imports, and only Canada accounts for more than 10% of our total oil consumption. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq are the only Middle Eastern countries that rank among our top 15 import sources…and together they account for far less oil than we get from Canada alone. All this data comes from the Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Our sources of oil are about as diversified as the sources of any product we import. That’s why I don’t get too worried about another country having us over an oil barrel.
confused
September 24th, 2009
11:37 am
I think the main point overlooked by the media is that we’ve only been recording temperatures for about 100 years, and anything before that is just conjecture and theory. No one knows what the temps were during middle ages, but everyone can “guess”. The point is, if our temperatures are rising, who can say it is NOT a natural phenomenon? I am sure that if temps were tracked (but we didn’t back then) 100,000 years, you would see a nice statistical distribution of up and down swings of a few degrees. Maybe now we’re just in a typical “up-swing” pattern, which happens every hundred, thousand, or ten thousand years??? And, you’re right CO2 is necessary for our survival, since plants need CO2 to synthesize the oxygen we like breathing……
Billy Bob
September 24th, 2009
12:00 pm
Interesting essay, Kyle, I believe you may be on to something.
Grifters call it the old ‘bait and switch’ tactic whereby you promise the ‘mark’ a certain item, like a more habitable environment & cleaner air, when all the while you plan on handing the ‘mark’ something FAR LESS valuable, like more government control and socialism – and NO change in the environment. Socialists seemed to have latched onto this political tactic. I know your more saavy conservative readers have already spotted this environmental grift as practiced by our domestic socialist politicians, however, I offer the following facts for your more general audience’s consumption.
The earth’s atmosphere has ALWAYS contained large amounts of greenhouse
gases like CO2 – carbon dioxide. For instance, during the ‘Cambrian’ period (approximately 500 million years ago), the level of CO2 gas in the atmosphere is (scientifically) estimated to have been on the order of 6,000 parts per million (ppm). The ‘Jurassic’ period (150-200 million years ago), when dinosaurs and small mammals began to flourish, saw levels of CO2 gas on the order of 1200-1500 ppm.
From the Jurassic to the current ‘Neogene’ period (approximately 23 million years ago to the current day), there has been a continual, if
gradual, reduction in the level of CO2 gas in the atmosphere. This
currrent period initially saw CO2 gas levels as high as 650 ppm but the
level trended down to as low as 100 ppm and is approximately 385 ppm at
present.
I don’t know what could be considered a “normal” CO2 gas level for
the atmosphere, nor if there’s a standard for other such gases. I am
certainly not confident that government intervention and billion-dollar
expense will “lower” it to some arbitrary “acceptable” level. I DO KNOW that, to the extent that science allows, the CO2 gas level has been extremely high during prior earth periods where complex life flourished, including, possibly, our mammalian forebears, and that it continues to flourish today. I am certain that “people who like inept government [oxymoron alert] control” have opportunistically pounced on this issue in their attempt to expand government intervention in our lives.
Thanks for your fact-based essay on this political grift.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:03 pm
Partisay, apologies, I didn’t realize you got your info from an actual news source. McVeigh was crazy but to say that Republicans and the likes of Limbaugh made McVeigh blow up a federal building is absolutely insane. Rush Limbaugh has NEVER advocated violence towards anyone. The left wing fringe has also done many many acts of terrorism. The likes of Bill Ayers who bombed the Pentagon, Environmental whack jobs that cause fires that kill people all in the name of animals. The list goes on and on. But to blame either party for causing someone to go out and kill someone is insane.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:05 pm
F-105 Thunderchief, its not the GOP that keeps drilling out of the USA.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:07 pm
The very reason I don’t believe in man-made global warming is simply because the people who preach about it don’t live by what they preach. When Al Gore sells his multi-million dollar mansion, sells his 10 private jets and his entire fleet of SUV’s, I might listen to him. But until then…….
booger
September 24th, 2009
12:09 pm
There is absolutely no logic for not producing our own oil. Drilling technology has developed to the point where it is virtualy no threat to the environment. It has been over thirty years since a significant production related oil spill has taken place even though there are thousands of offshore rigs. This is more significant in light of the many hurricanes that pound this very area.
On the other hand, shipping oil by tankers, as we all know, can be very dangerous to the environment. During this same thirty year period there have been many tanker mishaps.
So what do we do in the name of protecting the environment? Virtually shut down exploration which results in shipping more oil into the country. Smart move!
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:17 pm
THIS IS THE VERY REASON PARENTS DIDN’T WANT THEIR KIDS WATCHING THE OBAMA SPEECH TO SCHOOL CHILDREN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo
William
September 24th, 2009
12:27 pm
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
10:30 am
It’s true 2005 was the hottest year on record and there is no question that sea levels have been rising. But this is not a recent phenomenon: global temperature and sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
Today, almost all scientists agree that there is global warming, but there is no scientific consensus about what causes global warming or how it will affect our lives.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196017,00.html
Here is my source for my earlier comment:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
I keep finding lots of sites that states global warming is a ruse. But you stick to your ideology and avoid the facts.
AnnoyedBayou
September 24th, 2009
12:29 pm
Hey confused…
Just a note of clarification — geoclimatologists can use many different ways to determine what weather was doing in various phases of history (and fyi — I agree with our comment, just adding some info and my own take here…).
From Wikipedia:The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer North Atlantic era known as the Medieval Warm Period. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[1] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century.[2] It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.
The point is climate, as noted in many comments above, and man’s affect on current and future temperatures, is still not completely understood. Many say we’re still seeing warming from the Little Ice Age. Many say we’re moving back INTO an ice age (In 1978, magazine covers blared “Get Ready for the Ice Age!! — remember???). Still other push the climate warming theories. It’s confusing enough, but with many of the world’s politicians backing (and investing in) green energy and technologies, it clouds the issue (no pun intended) when so much money is at stake for the wealthy and political elite. Read up on Al Gore’s investments (easy to do on the Web). Sure, he’s free to invest where he will and in the technologies he believes in, but doesn’t that create a conflict of interest when the very thing he preaches also has the potential to make him unbelieveably wealthy? Also, the Carbon Trade will create a new financial system — and we, the users of energy — won’t be benefiting from it. Nor will children in depressed countries who need water, vitamins, and shelter. And ultimately, nor will the future’s children.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:32 pm
Just heard the perfect analogy of what the UN has become.
If you take vanilla or chocolate ice cream, mix it with doo doo, and eat it, the ice cream will taste like doo doo. That’s what you get when you mix dictatorship countries with free societies at the UN.
UN = DOO DOO
jconservative
September 24th, 2009
12:45 pm
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
10:38 am
“jconservative, have you been asleep for the last 2 years?”
NO. If you will read what I wrote you will see that oil was the first
asset I mentioned. And drilling for all the oil available in the USA will take care of 10% of our needs. Please advise on the other 90%.
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
12:45 pm
William,
The two links that you have provided are both from websites with known right-wing biases. In fact, the expert quoted in the Canadian article, Dr. Tim Ball, works with an orgainization called the National Resources Stewardship Project, which has known ties to the petroleum industry.
Now, I ask you, don’t you think that source of funding would make that organization not exactly impartial?
DAVID
September 24th, 2009
12:47 pm
HEY…..you idiots on the Left….Global Warming is a HOAX….pure & simple….Don’t be soooo stupid.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:59 pm
jconservative, I was referring to your comment about people not getting off of their duff and doing something about the oil problem. There are a LOT of people who want to drill here. If a GOP candidate wanted to beat Obama in 2012 all they’d have to run on is drilling here and sealing the border. Done.
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
12:59 pm
David,
I also ask you to please back up your claim. Merely stating insults is not an effective debate tactic.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
12:59 pm
Dunwoody Mike, the founder of the Weather Channel says global warming is crap.
William
September 24th, 2009
1:00 pm
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
12:45 pm
Right wing makes it biased? Facts or facts. Now I have provided you with links and that does not appease you. Hmmm…maybe I should quote Al Gore! Would that compliment your knowledge?
Chris Broe
September 24th, 2009
1:08 pm
Lyle’s Gaseous Gasp: “CO2 is neither a toxin nor a pollutant”. Ouch. You need a chart of the elements to decipher Lyle Kingfield today.
Lyle had a choice here: calm down by breathing into a paper bag, or take a whack at how covalent bonds arise from the ionized speed dating provided by Brownian motion.
He blinded himself with science!
Jklol
Left wing management
September 24th, 2009
1:11 pm
What a surprise. A stooge of the conservative noise machine weighs in on climate change and links to National Review. So basically, so the argument goes, we needn’t worry because … because why? … because conservatives think there’s a conspiracy and that all the evidence is rigged.
And in their smug, smarter-than-though attitude, the conservatives yet again get it wrong and think that their Counte Me Out attitude amounts to a viable alternative to the world’s problems (or to the right to define those problems, a right they infinitely whine at being deprived of) and the supposedly chic left wing, progressive approaches to those problems they so despise.
Like thet would-be bully on the playground who pouts and wishes he could land a blow against the powerful kids around him, conservatives continue to rehearse their transparent claims of being discriminated against, but many of us remain unconvinced …
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:11 pm
Chris Broe, no, Kyles right about CO2. If you’re going to poke fun at other people at least provide something to back up your claims.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:13 pm
Left wing management, as opposed to you and your kind linking in to Daily Kos and Huffington Post?
Pot meet Kettle.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:15 pm
Left wing management, scientist can’t even decide on global warming. They have no clue as to what to say about global warming. First, the Earth is warming. Now, the Earth is cooling. Owl Gore famously said that hurricanes would destroy America blah blah blah. We have not had a major hurricane since 06. So please, continue to ramble on without providing any evidence that man is causing global warming.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:17 pm
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is ‘Telling Us What to Think’
TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose ‘the fraud of global warming.’
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/5/2008 9:00:18 AM
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:19 pm
Time Magazine said that the coming Ice Age was going to kill everyone.
Famous 70s Magazine cover.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/big-freeze.jpg
Left wing management
September 24th, 2009
1:22 pm
What a surprise, the founder of Atlanta-based Weather Channel (and no doubt resident of one of Atlanta’s politically recrudescent Northern Suburbs) comes out against global warming.
The trick with global warming is not to get too caught up in the science of the thing, but to see it for what it really is and should be: a cudgel to whack the powerful industrialists on the knees with.
Now. I said it. What do you say to that Mr. Axeltwad ?
Dunwoody Mike
September 24th, 2009
1:22 pm
I’m not a fan of Al Gore either, William.
I was merely pointing out that one of the sources you listed may have a vested interest in discrediting the idea that global warming is a valid theory. If one has enough money, they can get a scientist to say that the Earth is flat and milk comes from birds.
Kyle Wingfield
September 24th, 2009
1:28 pm
Left-wing management: The German climate modeler I cited, Mojib Latif, is one of the lead authors for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports. Not exactly a conspiratorial conservative. So, what did I, with my “smug, smarter-than-though [sic] attitude,” get wrong? We’re all waiting to hear. And who said anything about discrimination? Besides you, I mean.
As for Chris Broe: Do you (ever) have a point?
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:32 pm
Left wing derangement, so, since the founder happens to be from Atlanta, that disqualifies him? I mean, he founded the freaking weather channel! What did Al Gore do to make him a weather expert?
He failed out of divinity school at Vanderbilt. AND, he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
So Left wing derangement, why should I believe a hack politician who has never been a scientist, never studied climatology and has an entire fleet of gas guzzlers?
You wrote: The trick with global warming is not to get too caught up in the science of the thing, but to see it for what it really is…….??????????????
Are you retarded?
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:34 pm
Left wing derangement, again, I ask you. PROVIDE CONCRETE EVIDENCE THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS!!!!!!
You left wingers are always asking conservatives to provide facts on issues and when we do, you disqualify them because Dan Rather, Keith Olberqueer, Katie Couric and Rachel Maddow didn’t report it.
Again, Pot meet Kettle.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
1:37 pm
Kyle, the biggest reason people don’t care about global scamming is really simple.
1: the unemployment rate is 10% and climbing.
2: the democrats are bankrupting the country at lightning speed.
3: Obama has handed us over to the UN.
4: Islamic Fascism is a real threat.
5: Owl Gore could not convince his own state to vote for him in 2000 so how in the world would he convince people that global warming is real?
Pretty good list, huh?
Left wing management
September 24th, 2009
1:38 pm
Thanks for responding Kyle. And now that we’re talking one-on-one, apologies for the name-calling. My point in using the word stooge (other than to get a hearing in the forum cacaphony) was that you and your fellow conservatives are merely replicating the opinion machine you’re critiquing by forming one of your own that’s merely the mirror image of that one. And by doing that you’re reduced to basically arguing that there’s no big deal, that the specter of global warming is a figment of our imagination. Which may even be true, but its truth can no more be proved that its falsehood.
As I see it, the concerrn over global warming is rooted in modern science, but as with all things scientific, there is no way to arrive at indisputable consensus on scientific basis alone (ironically science itself always rests on some sort of ‘faith’). And speaking of faith, that’s how I ultimately see it, as maybe humanity’s biggest “Pascalian wager”. In other words, though it will never be possible to eliminate a certain amount of conjecture and doubt from our fears about global warming and catastrophe, by simply deciding that it’s not real we choose an option that has specific consequences. And if we’re wrong in that game of Russian roulette, the consequences are grave.
OwlGore
September 24th, 2009
1:45 pm
Why are my comments awaiting moderation?
MANBEARPIG DID THIS!!!!!
Kyle Wingfield
September 24th, 2009
2:00 pm
OwlGore: Please stay somewhat on topic…the comments about manbearpig that I took down weren’t anywhere close.
Left-wing management: Thanks, I’m trying to discourage name-calling on here. Your most recent comment does a lot more to push the debate along.
You’re right about indisputable evidence and consensus. And I think a lot of people, including conservatives, would be fine with some sort of insurance against the worst consequences of any change in the climate, no matter how that change comes about. But the kinds of policies being proposed amount to the equivalent of buying five extra cars in case something happens to your first one.
As I wrote, I like the ideas put forth by people like Bjorn Lomborg — who is not a climate change skeptic — to insure against climate change by making sure people can adapt to whatever changes come along. Improving things like nutrition and education in poor countries is one good way to do that, because their people will be better equipped to deal with change…not to mention that they’ll be able to build their own economies rather than relying on aid from richer countries.
William
September 24th, 2009
2:07 pm
I believe if there was a threat of global warming the conservatives would provide valuable assistance or leadership in correcting any man made problems. I know conservatives love this country enough that they would not allow it to be “ruined”. However, I have seen liberals starve
an oil based economy simply by speculation of green energy and dire hatred of corporations. The progressive liberals have been uncivil and proclaimed statements that have no scientific facts backing their statements. Only because the liberal medial provided a lauching pad for their missles of misinformation did it get a foothold in this country. Now the world has to sort it out costing billions of dollars and countless jobs. That is the legacy of global warming. This is progressive liberalism attempting to regulate corporations and government with their ideoloy. Mainstream American may not have a college degree but I am a witness to you that are just as intelligent.
OwlGore
September 24th, 2009
2:09 pm
Kyle Wingfield, you obviously don’t watch South Park. Of course my comments were on topic. Wow.
OwlGore
September 24th, 2009
2:16 pm
On the home page of the AJC is a picture of a redneck carrying out a confederate picture frame. I wonder if the AJC purposely did this to somehow pin Georgia as racist.
booger
September 24th, 2009
2:27 pm
owlgore,
Of course they did. They just keep scratching that scab of racial divide.
Partisay
September 24th, 2009
2:30 pm
Axelfraud, apologies accepted. But I never said Rush was to blame for the bombing. What I am saying is the anti government rhetoric that is spewed by the talking heads on tv and radio can and I am afraid will push people over the edge. And yes, it can happen on the left side too. The only difference is, the left does not have those talking heads on their side to the degree the right has. If they did and they were irresponsible at the right in their rhetoric, I would call them out also.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
2:40 pm
Partisay, the left doesn’t have the talking heads????
Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart, Michael Moore, Hollywood, Huffington, NY TImes, CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, MSNBC………..
See where I’m going with this? The right is not advocating killing anyone. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc.., informs the viewers and listeners about what is going on. Bill Clinton tried to tie Rush in with the Ok City bombings and Rush went after him on it. The man who shot up the Holocaust Museum in DC was said to be a right-winger YET not one media person could say HOW he was a right winger. An abortion doctor was shot, in which MANY conservatives and christians spoke out on, yet the left labeled that man a right winger.
An abortion protester was shot by a person and what do you hear from the MSM? NOT ONE PEEP.
MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and the NY TIMES talked about it and headlined this story for 3-4 days.
When the abortion protester was shot and killed……..crickets. chirp. chirp.
Its just like the ACCORN story. You did not hear a peep from it from the MSM until AFTER FOX called them all out on it.
Facts are facts and its 100% true that the main stream media is in the tank for Obama.
Unless Rush or any other talking head says “go out and kill” you can not blame anyone but the idiots who commit the crime.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
2:41 pm
Partisay, where was the left when a movie came out about George W. Bush getting shot?
About to kill myself
September 24th, 2009
2:44 pm
Literally every word of this is incorrect. You are contributing to destroying the environment for your children and grandchildren. I feel sorry for you for your ignorance. Do you realize that there isn’t a scientist or peer reviewed article left in the world doubting climate change and its severity. The IPCC concludes that the earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.34 degrees in the period from 1906 to 2005. The warming is stronger over land areas than over the sea, and accordingly it is strongest in the northern hemisphere. At the same time occurrences of heat waves and violent downpours have also increased, the oceans have risen, and the ice at the world’s poles and on its mountains has begun to melt. All of these effects are predictable in the event of global warming. Oh by the way, the flood you just experienced will be the norm now so enjoy!
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
3:08 pm
Found this on Bookmans blog.
GEORGE AMERICAN
September 24th, 2009
2:04 pm
ACOON IS GETTING WAHT THEY DESERVE!!!
somewhereinga
September 24th, 2009
3:10 pm
Sorry to bring anyone back to the subject at hand.
“Global temperatures have held steady for several years, contrary to the expectations of statistical models.”
I would be interesting in seeing those “statistics” since I’ve seen the exact opposit which brings us to the obvious… there is a study out there that can be used to back up ANY opinion that ANYONE has.
As for “David Axelfrauds” stupid “logic”. You want it hot in December in Chicago? Let’s see…fruit trees need a certain amount of freezing temps to produce fruit the following year. Well, there goes the fruit crops. If the temps go up 20 degrees in Kansas in the summer, the corn crops will be distroyed. But then…we don’t need all that corn…and of course, the wheat crop. A desert looks better.
I have a pond in my back yard here in the mountains. 20 years ago you could skate on it most of the winter. Gradually it has frozen less and less. This past year it froze all the way across only once and then only just barely. I don’t think I even took my “winter” coat out of the closet this past year.
We’ve got a problem. Fortunately there are people out there who know that and won’t let people like Wingfield stand in the way of solving the problem.
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
3:16 pm
somewhereinga, where are these “fruit trees” you speak of in Chicago?
David Axelfraud
September 24th, 2009
3:18 pm
somewhereinga, did you realize that this summer and last summer were the coolest summers in over 30 years?
gunga din
September 24th, 2009
3:21 pm
“A McClatchy newspapers’ journalist who witnessed the battle reported that a team of Marine trainers made repeated appeals for air and artillery support after being pinned down by insurgents in the village of Ganjgal in eastern Kunar province.
The U.S. troops had to wait more than an hour for attack helicopters to come to their aid and their appeal for artillery fire was rejected, with commanders citing new rules designed to avoid civilian casualties, the report said. ”
http://www.military.com/news/article/ambushed-marines-aid-call-rejected.html?col=1186032325324