moonbattery.gif


« History Doesn't Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes | Main | With Election Over, Smoke Begins to Clear »


November 13, 2008

Defense Bureaucrats Focus on Global Warming Farce

No wonder Obama has promised to gut the military. Most of its personnel and hardware will be useless against our new enemy. Since all actual threats are to be dealt with using nuanced dialogue, the Armed Forces under Commander-in-Chief B. Hussein Obama will focus on combating the phantom menace of global warming:

As a new administration committed to addressing climate change takes office, intelligence and defense officials are laying plans to address the national security implications of a warmer planet.
In recent months, U.S. military planners have discussed the impact on personnel, equipment and installations of extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns and stresses on natural resources.
Among the concerns: 63 U.S. coastal military facilities and several nuclear reactors are in danger of flooding from storm surges, said Tom Fingar, the deputy director of national intelligence for analysis.
President-elect Barack Obama next month will receive a key intelligence report, Global Trends 2025. Sources who reviewed the document for the government but asked not to be named said the report gives top priority to climate change.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, it hasn't gotten any warmer since 1998. While bureauweenies focus the Armed Forces on the geopolitical ramifications of our incandescent light bulbs melting the polar ice caps, others have gone back to fretting about the next ice age.

Obama's election makes it official: we are living in the Twilight Zone.

twilight-zone.jpg

On tips from mega and V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at November 13, 2008 8:06 PM

Comments

I'm throwing an extra two logs on the fire and winging the flue wide open tonight to help prevent the next Ice Age.

I'm doing my part to save the planet from doom.

Bawaaahhhhaaaaawwwaaaahhhaaaaaa.

Posted by: Oiao at November 13, 2008 8:14 PM

This whole global warming is a lie and our new emporer is going to revert this nation into a primative state and frankly i hope all those idiots who voted for him end up kicking themselves all the way back to their news place of worship THE HOLY CHURCH OF GAIA

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at November 13, 2008 8:21 PM

Obama's plan:giving our troops life preservers instead of body armor, having fuel efficient tanks and humvees, and have them turn off any equipment when not in use.

Posted by: conservativeteen at November 13, 2008 9:52 PM

Two points.

First Point:
Anthropogenic global warming via CO2 is a couplete hoax. The infrared cross section of CO2 is quite small compared to water vapor. If corrected for water vapor, man's CO2 global warming contribution is 0.117% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html). In earth's history, carbon dioxide increase follows warming. It does not precede it. One can go on and cite the evidence of increasing ice at the poles (record levels in the Antartic and 35% increase this year over 2007 in the Artic), the decreasing solar wind (down 50%), and the delay of solar cycle 24. But, why not just check the temperature where you are? The ski resorts opened 3 weeks early this year in Utah, Norway, the Alps, Colorado etc.
The whole claim of global warming by anthropogenic CO2 is so very stupid that it defies description. It is a complete invention of social engineers who are planning to use this as a means of getting power. But doesn't anybody realize that it is getting colder and will continue to get colder? How are they going to hide the cooling climate of the whole planet? They control the media--but not even the media can keep people from going outside and freezing their butts.

The second point:
The absolutely insane, criminally stupid stance on global warming actually makes more sense than the rest of what the liberals state they want to accomplish.

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 13, 2008 9:57 PM

YOUR ENTERING A ZONE A ZONE OF STUPIDIDY,IGNORANCE,AND ARRAGAENCE,A PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO COMMON SENSE AND IRRESPONSBILTY AND THE RULE AND WHERE SMART PEOPLE AND CONSERVATIVES REFUSE TO TREAD YOU JUST CROSSED OVER INTO THE LIBERAL ZONE

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at November 13, 2008 10:10 PM

From the Naked Communist (Cleon Skousen)
Noted in U.S. Congressional Record on January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals:
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture."

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Posted by: Mike_W at November 13, 2008 10:28 PM

Mike_W

This looks like a checklist that fell out of Nancy Pelosi's purse. Which ones has she already checked off?

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 13, 2008 11:02 PM

Which ones has she already checked off?

Posted by: SnowSnake

Well, looks to me like most of 'em.
Stil a few to go, though the Moonbat Messiah is working hard on those.

Posted by: Mike_W at November 13, 2008 11:35 PM

Can't change the universe -- If the current solar trend continues, It will soon be so cold that even the dumbest amongst us will realize Al Gore is an idiot.

Posted by: tarpon at November 14, 2008 6:18 AM

tarpon,

You don't know how stupid a liberal can be, do you?

Never underestimate the depth of a liberal's stupidity, it is truly a bottomless pit.

Posted by: bwahahahahah` at November 14, 2008 6:26 AM

Mike_W


What you posted is already happening.

Posted by: Watching at November 14, 2008 7:38 AM

Snowsnake,
I love it when idiots try and sound smart. You obviously just found this online, thought it sounded real scientific, and so you copy and pasted it when 3rd grade science class completely negates your argument.

Remember when we were little kids, and we learned about the water cycle? How water evaporates and then comes back down to earth. Water vapor doesn't STAY in the atmosphere. It comes down as this thing called precipitation. Now I know that's probably too big a word for you, but precipitation is rain, dew, snow, etc.

Gasses do NOT come back down to earth the way water vapor does. They stay in the atmosphere. So it doesn't matter how much CO2 is in water because water does not stay in the air and dissipate into the troposphere and atmosphere the way greenhouse gasses do.

I can't beleive you are so stupid you don't know that water vapor turns into rain fall and gasses don't.

Posted by: Bill Nye at November 14, 2008 7:53 AM

Snowsnake,
I love it when idiots try and sound smart. You obviously just found this online, thought it sounded real scientific, and so you copy and pasted it when 3rd grade science class completely negates your argument.

Remember when we were little kids, and we learned about the water cycle? How water evaporates and then comes back down to earth. Water vapor doesn't STAY in the atmosphere. It comes down as this thing called precipitation. Now I know that's probably too big a word for you, but precipitation is rain, dew, snow, etc.

Gasses do NOT come back down to earth the way water vapor does. They stay in the atmosphere. So it doesn't matter how much CO2 is in water because water does not stay in the air and dissipate into the troposphere and atmosphere the way greenhouse gasses do.

I can't believe you are so stupid you don't know that water vapor turns into rain fall and gasses don't.

Posted by: Bill Nye at November 14, 2008 7:53 AM

This is the fundamental problem with global warming deniers. They lack a basic understanding of science, so whenever they read anything that sounds the least bit intellectual, they assume that "proves" their point. They don't realize that just because someone uses correct scientific terminology, that doesn't mean they are presenting a sound argument.

Thus, you have someone like snowflake, who is so mentally deficient they don't know that water turns into rain. So then they read an argument which states that water does not turn into rain, it stays in the atmosphere and impacts CO2 levels, and they say "wow, this argument sounds air tight!"

Posted by: Bill Nye at November 14, 2008 8:10 AM

so Bill Nye, since the polar icecap has mostly melted, answer me this - where did the water go?

Posted by: blue at November 14, 2008 8:11 AM

The problem with saying that global warming is manmade is that it is based on BAD statistics. They showed that the earth is warming by starting the data set for temperature change during the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s - the year that New England had no summer. If they went back farther in time, they would see that the Earth used to be warmer - there were vineyards in England and Greenland was actually green. If you look at the data, you would see that increased CO2 production is caused BY warming (more plants grow, more CO2 is produced), not the other way around. And, if warming is manmade, why did Mars experience the same warming that we did? Could it be... THE SUN?

Posted by: Nancy at November 14, 2008 8:33 AM

Blue

If you would check these three sites,( http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/:
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images//daily_images/S_timeseries.png)including the first from the Canadian Cryosphere, you would soon seen that there is not a "mostly melted situation,". In fact, the growth of ice in 2008 in the artic is very rapid to the point of being a little scary. In 2007, there was a little less ice in the artic, but that was made up for in the Antartic and the thickness of ice in Greenland. What you may not realize is that glaciers and ice sheets grow. They get thicker and the edges move. Some of the edges calve off chunks of ice and this can actually increase as the center grows. It looks to somebody who only watches predigested pap or to some political hack trying to manipulate data as though there is a great melting. Satellite data shows that the antartic ice sheet has actually gotten a lot more massive in terms of the amount of ice.

Now, as to your question about where does the water go. Well, if the ice sheets are actually growing (as they are), then the oceans should be falling. Indian Ocean (http://www.iceagenow.com/Indian_Ocean_sea_levels_are_falling.htm): Pacific Ocean (http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacific_Ocean_sea_levels_falling.htm): Atlantic ocean (http://www.iceagenow.com/Atlantic_Sea_Level_Falling.htm); and a small discussion on the whole fraud situation (http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm)

Of course, there is plenty of room to wiggle and manipulate the data. These are mostly based on satellite data and the oceans are subject to tides and local temperatures (changes in height is one way to measure temperature and predict storms and local variations in current).

If you look at historical sites in Antartica, they are buried under 50 feet of ice. When they recovered some World War II era P-38's in Greenland, they were under a couple hundred feet of ice.

At this point, if you actually read this, you might be wondering why this is all new to you and doesn't correspond with what you thought was solid fact. Well, the reason is that you have been fed a lot of lies.

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 14, 2008 9:10 AM

Bill Nye

Why do you think precipitation clears the air of moisture so that it doesn't absorb IR? There is a cycle and at any given time the water vapor contributes 95% of the global warming greenhouse effect. Manmade carbon dioxide is only a small part of the total carbon dioxide. There is also a very large component from decaying vegetable matter, geologic processes, and respiration of living things. Thus, only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to anthropogenic CO2.

For a little bit of humor, consider that the solar panel people generate a lot of NF3. That is a greenhouse gas with about 17,000 times the potential of CO2. The amount so far is only a few metric tons--but if this industry really scales up we may actually have a problem. I don't know the half life of NF3 in the atmosphere, but I do know that the half life of some of the smaller chloroflourocarbons is several hundred years.

Incidentally, I don't have to cut and paste. I do know this stuff.

Nancy,

I would add that there is also a large component of the CO2 balance with ocean temperatures. The ocean is a tremendous buffer for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Besides the biomass, there are temperature aspects (water's ability to hold CO2 varies with temperature), and chemical effects with the pH. Also most of the world's CO2 is locked up in mineral deposits so that if we didn't have tectonic plate movements it would be a whole different story.

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 14, 2008 9:37 AM

This should tell you everything you need to know about Republicans:

"Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties." http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/25/opinion/op-chait25

As a result, there are no Republicans with scientific backgrounds on the Global Warming Committee. They looked at two groups: Republican politicians with business backgrounds who did not believe in global warming, and Republican scientists who DO believe in man made global warmings. The Rpeublicans said "Hmmm, now here we have one group that has no scientific background, but they tell us what we want to hear, so they are allwoed on a scientific commitee with no qualifications what so ever. The Republican scientists who had qualifications were denied spots, because we don't like what they have to say"


Can you say Galileo?

Posted by: Ransom at November 14, 2008 9:57 AM

Ransom

"who accept the scientific consensus"

The use of the two words scientific and consensus are quite objectionable. If science had an equivalent of the 'n' word, this would probably be it. You can not decide an issue by deciding who hollars loudest or who can cut off research funds or who shouts insults through the media in the most effective way. This is anything but science. When somebody states that everybody agrees with their opinion and thus their opinion is now accepted not-to-be-disputed fact, you know they are possibly many things--but they are not and never have been scientists.

At least 31,000 individuals half of which have advanced degrees in science have signed petitions stating that they don't agree with the concept of serious anthropogenic global warming. This is different and does not disqualify them as scientists--they are not saying that any one concept is correct or incorrect. They are rejecting that only the one concept is now and forever the only acceptable truth with respect to global climate.

Another problem with absolute certainty in science is that nature doesn't cooperate. Even as they make more and more radical statements about global warming, the sun has no spots, the record cold temperatures keep coming into the data bases, and the crops can't be harvested or planted.

There is always one absolute in science; the truth will out.

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 14, 2008 10:25 AM

snowsnake - so how can ALGORE claim that global waring is causing th ice cap to melt?

Posted by: blue at November 14, 2008 10:27 AM

Blue

Al Gore is a lying, political hack who I think would deep fat fry his mother for money. There is not any respect for science or truth in what he says. He has been proven incorrect in almost everything he says about global warming. (On occasion like a stopped clock that is correct twice a day, he sometimes is correct when he completely contradicts himself--sometimes in the same speech).

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 14, 2008 10:49 AM

Daaaaamn SnowSnake I learned alot from those posts. Real good job. If you could get that on the drive by media then AL Gore and the Dems would be out of a job. I never beleived in global warming any way.

I remember back in the 70's everyone was in a tizzy about global cooling. The New York Slimes had a peice about the next ice age and how long would it last.

If I'm not mistaken doesn't solar wind and the lack there of have a lot to do with global cooling?

Posted by: Watching at November 14, 2008 11:52 AM

www.dailymail.co./article-1085359-Global-warning-we-actually-headed-new-ice-age-claim-scientist.html

I read this the yesterday. I'd rather be warmer than colder......grow more food that way.

Posted by: Watching at November 14, 2008 12:16 PM

Yeah.

Solar wind has to do with the flux of particles and magenetic fields around the sun. This forms what looks like a bubble (Heliosphere) the extent of which is called the Heliopause.

The main effect of the heliosphere is to protect us and the vicinity from cosmic rays and charged particles flying around all of space. Cosmic rays affect clouds on earth.

The problem with clouds is that they are difficult to fit to the climate models. They trap heat (your local weather personality will say that the temperatures will not drop because of a cloud cover), they reflect heat back into space, and depending on the height and vapor content will absorb radiant heat (greenhouse effect). At the moment, I think the computer models and math don't really have an exact handle on the total effect and interaction of clouds with cosmic particles and the sun's magnetic and particle flux. I think we can say that there is an effect. Keep in mind that the earth has clouds 24-7 while the sun is only shining on one side half the time.

What we do know from historical data is that sunspots do correlate with cold periods of time. The sunpots are also well established as being related to magnetic cycles in the sun. (Experts stand in front of screens in front of other experts and point at slides and mathematical formulas and they explain the hell out of this stuff and they write books and review articles on this. I'm not one of them.) Sunspots have been observed for hundreds of years. We are now in the last part of solar cycle 23 and it has lasted 12 years. The average is 10.7 Longer cycles and fewer spots are well correlated historically with cold periods. Right now, it looks like we are going to get cold.

There are other well known cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. (Every 30 years of so, the Pacific oscillates and we get colder temperatures which lead to colder and wetter times on our Pacific coast--that has started to happen as of last year.), there are other oscillations in oceans such as el Nino and la nina. There are longer term cycles in the sun's magnetic field, in earth's orbit, and in earth's geothermal activity. It is quite possible that the peak of one or more of these cycles could come due at the same time and the effect of one would exacerbate the other. We appear to be due or even past due for several of these changes.

The following is speculation on my part: Several models suggest that the onset on these changes would be very fast--a matter of just a few years. These models are not predicting the hundreds of years we always expected for severe changes. Some of this may already have started a few years ago. If this is true, then the changes Obama has promised may be of very little importance or interest.

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 14, 2008 1:00 PM

Feed the eco-freaks to the polarbears killer whales and man eating stymphalian birds

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at November 14, 2008 3:36 PM

I love it when assholes use a pseudonym they think will make them sound like they know jack shit about environmental science.

I think Bill Nye (both the real douche bag and our current SFB-in-residence) needs to do a little more research into a few other areas: The Carbon Cycle, CO2 Sinks, Biological Pumps, Solubility pumps, Seawater pH vs. temperature relationships, and all of the above's integrations with the water cycle.

I can't believe he is so stupid he doesn't know that CO2 gas is absorbed into atmospheric water vapor, turns into rain fall and is brought back to the Earth's surface.

Posted by: Henry at November 14, 2008 7:19 PM

Henry

I wouldn't have mentioned it since it is a little obscure. But when I saw the alias, Bill Nye, I
remembered that there was a humorist named Bill Nye who lived from 1850 to 1896. He was a contemporary of Mark Twain (another visitor to this site) and Artemus Ward. Anyway, he was noted for hyperbole. He wrote several books but the one that I remembered with a chuckle was FORTY LIARS AND Other LIES (l892).

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 14, 2008 9:39 PM

The "Consensus" argument...

Here's a funny little story about consensus.

Posted by: Henry at November 15, 2008 9:04 AM

Henry

Thanks. I knew about it, but the details had escaped my attention. Nice piece.

The history of scientific struggles is interesting. Among others we have had epic battles over:

flat earth
phlogiston (substance release on combustion)
luminiferous aether (explanation for propagation of light)
earth in center of celestial sphere
atoms as little universe
steady state universe/versus big bang

We are now working on string theory and alternate universes.

The fact is that truth will out! It was the weapon of Jesus. It is the weapon of scientists some of whom don't believe in Jesus. If everybody in the whole world believes one thing and they would crucify you for belief in another, and one small boy tells the truth--that truth will win in the end even if it takes a thousand years.

Posted by: SnowSnake at November 15, 2008 9:33 AM