« Moonbat Job Training at UCLA | Main | Saying "Get Osama" Is Racist »

Wouldn't Bangladeshi weather problems be caused more by being stuck on a narrow strip of land between the Indian Ocean and the Himalayas? It is almost as bad as placing a city below sea level in an area frequented by hurricanes

"even while admitting that it was nowhere near as bad as the cyclone that hit in the 1970s, before global warming had been invented."

Actually the origins of Global Warming as a concept go back farther than most people think.

It was a "hot" topic back in the 1930s during the Dust Bowl. People in the late 1800s were also alarmed by alot of hot weather back then. Most of the local daily records in Pennsylvania still go back to the 1880s and 1890s.

The history of man caused global warming does go back to the 1880s - though it didnt rise to level of moonbat hysteria seen today.

Heres a good historical summary.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

"The origins of the global warming scare

The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue. "

I was suprised to learn of Maggie Thatchers role in promoting it.

Dogs and cats no longer get along, yet another impact of global warming.

Maggie saw in the global warming idea a weapon to use against the mining unions and as a means to get rid of our legacy coal mines because they were all running at a massive loss. She used the scare to justify shunting our power generation capacity over to relatively clean-burning natural gas and then went on to shut down most of the old nationalised mines, and then privatised the rest. There's only about a dozen left now.

Actually it was one of her advisers that fist cottoned her on to the idea but once she saw how effective it would be against the miners she went for it, handbag swinging. I think, these days, she's decided not to talk about that particular moment of history anymore.

Sort of OT. I've begun slogging through the recently released IPCC Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change." In chapter 1, Introduction, Al Gore's well-publicized "consensus" is brought up thus:

Defining what is dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system and, consequently, the limits to be
set for policy purposes are complex tasks that can only be
partially based on science, as such definitions inherently
involve normative judegments. Decisions made in relation to
Article 2 will determine the level of GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere (or the corresponding climate change) that is set
as the goal for policy and have fundamental implications for
emission reduction pathways as well as the scale of adaptation
required. The choice of a stabilization level implies the balancing
of the risks of climate change (risks of gradual change and
of extreme events, risk of irreversible change of the climate,
including risks for food security, ecosystems and sustainable
development) against the risk of response measures that may
threaten economic sustainability. There is little consensus as to
what constitutes anthropogenic interference with the climate
system and, thereby, on how to operationalize Article 2 (high
agreement, much evidence).

[emphasis mine]

"There is little consensus as to what constitutes anthropocentric interference with the climate system and, thereby, on how to operationalize Article 2."

Now, that is an interesting sentence fraught with meaning.

Wait... On that other link you gave... So farm waste causes NO environmental damage just like global warming? And it even improves biodiversity the same way warmer temperatures does? Lolz!

Sure, that dastardly global warming must have unleashed the great cyclone of Backerganj in 1876. You know, the one that killed ~200,000 people. Half drowned at the get-go, the other half died slowly from famine and disease. Then of course there was the great cyclone of Bhola in 1970 that killed greater than half a million people in several countries including Bangladesh. Yep. We're the guilty ones we are.

I'm confused - why would we use our evil creation (on demand cyclones) to kill off our potential slave laborers?

"On demand cyclones" ROFLMAO!!

Yep, soon the leftards will be accusing the western world of having such storms in their arsenal all under the heading of "weapons of mass destruction".

Take the WAR out of Global WARming - whats left. GLOBAL MING - MING the merciless from Flash Gordon - who is, yeah you guessed it - Dick Cheney.

Anonymous at November 21, 2007 10:57 AM

Hail Ming! Death to flash Gordon!

More blame the Westness... Malaysian Indian lawyer is suing Britain for the dhimmitude Indians experience in Malaysia. I cover it and link to the Yahoo News piece here:

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/malaysian-indian-lawyer-sues-britain-over-malaysias-social-contract/

I think he's not really Moonbatty, just trying to point of the dhimminess suffered in Malaysia.

Is Malaysia a dhimmitude? Well, ethnic Malays enjoy Constitution-established special rights and affirmative action, including economic privileges and less taxation. The definition of Malay? Nothing to do with race, but to with culture and being Muslim. Ergo, dhimmitude.

The legal advisors have just been arrested for 'sedition' as they were planning to protest at the British High Commission.