« Obama Appoints a Pair of Lysenkos | Main | Shoe-Chucking Baathist: I'll Sue! »

Just grand how even when theres maybe 5 to 6 feet of snow and the stupid green moonbats will still blame it on GLOBAL WARMING

Remember: Global Warming IS global cooling. The left is ABOVE common sense.

The left's 'intellectuals' don't need to worry about common sense as they're above the common man, and the lefts 'stupid' think they're smarter because they believe they're helping 'progress.'

I'd rather be a stupid conservative that follows some common sense than an intellectual liberal who's so convinced I'm the smartest person around that any dissent is painful to me.

The Al Gore Effect strikes again.

In science, there is a permanent constant: The truth will out. If all the world knows that the sun revolves about the earth and saying otherwise will get one burned at the stake, still it does not change the truth. If anthropogenic global warming is a lie, then no amount of meetings, no amount of press, no amount of clever speeches can change that fact. No matter how often at great volume you repeat a lie, it does not become the truth.

Eventually all that remains is the question: why did anybody ever believe the lie?

Because it was getting, on average, warmer.

Thats the only truth they saw. Any time the temp gets above 60 F they're going to be whining about it. If temperatures aren't that comfy range of 67-72 then hell is coming on earth, we made the world this way!

I have no problem with cleaning up the environment. I don't want to see trash on the roadside or blowing around in my yard any more than the next guy, but this "Carbon footprint" and "Global warming" crap has just got to go.

just reposting this funny link in its proper place.

The Washington Post invites you to send it $10 to print an ad using their pre-approved words of congratulation to Obama.

Cheesecake's statement is exactly right. I'm all for clean and efficient and renewable. But (and this goes to Snow Snake's point) even if "the truth will out", by the time it does the Enviro-Wackos will have managed to ruin our economy and maybe even the environment they think they're saving.

They must be stopped, shut down, stymied, marginalized and thwarted at every turn. If we let the lie become the truth, at least ONE species on the planet will certainly suffer...and that would be us!

I like dirty, grimy energy, the kind that gets my 13-mpg SUV from point A to point B in however many dinosaur parts were required to get the job done.

People need to screw their heads on about this stuff. Our whole continent is gonna be littered with windmills and malfunctioning solar panels before they figure out that all this green economy stuff is a bunch of hubris, destined to cause a real depression, as opposed to the dip we're seeing at present.

Build a snowman call it AL GORE and watch it melt away from its own HOT AIR

Mexico reminds us why people sneak across the border into the greatest country in the world in the first place.

And thousands are displaced to make room for biodiesel crops in Colombia.

Just dug up this little gem. Sound familiar?

El Cid Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Oh, I have no doubt the major media are all preparing to endorse McCain. They don’t give the slightest sh*t how much more damage Republicans do to the country; they just hate anything that even suggests a real imposition of somewhat liberal policies, such as a Democratic President and a strongly Democratic Congress, that they want a Republican President just to blunt the Congress.

And they’ll all sell it as supposed bipartisanship, and tell us once again their favorite fantasy bedtime story about how John McCain used to be Jesus H. Moderate Maverick and how they will Choose To Believe Again In Him.

THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!

Humans began causing global warming not with the advent of industrialization but during the stone age 5,000-8,000 years ago!1!!!

(via ace of spades)

Incidentally the article mentions that "the cumulative effect of thousands of years of human influence on climate is preventing the world from entering a new glacial age."

Not entirely sure why that's a bad thing.

From the link above:

"Global warming, some have argued, can be reversed with a large-scale "geoengineering" fix, such as having a giant blimp spray liquefied sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere or building tens of millions of chemical filter systems in the atmosphere to filter out carbon dioxide."

How on earth does spraying sulfur dioxide into the ocean become a good idea that is supported by science?

As for the second part, um... where could we possibly find tens of millions of things that filter carbon dioxide out of the air

Bush White House slams Grey Lady for lies - if only they had slammed more these past 8 years

Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed.

The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises.

The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market -- even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks. And while the story notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, it neglects that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials -- in particular the chairmen of the banking committees. In fact, even in the midst of what by then was a housing crisis, it took Congress nearly a full year to pass specific legislation called for by the President in the summer of 2007, especially legislation to reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

By sheer unrelated coincidence, FBI's top most wanted terrorists belong to a peacful religion TM

Tweety needs a yardstick for direction - calls Wright 'left' and Warren 'far right'

Wind freaks forced to concede that wind turbines do not reduce harmless CO2 emissions by quite as much as purported

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) has agreed to scale down its calculation for the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emission that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.

The move is a serious setback for the advocates of wind power, as it will be regarded as a concession that twice as many wind turbines as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of reduction in Britain's carbon emissions.

For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.

However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Even NYT writer admits that welfare-mad liberals give less to charity than conservatives

Photo evidence of Minnesota Recount duplicity

Regarding those wind turbines...we have lots of those up here in Northern New York (the redheaded stepchild). The greeny moonbats love these things, except they couldn't possibly allow them in their backyards. They look like a scary sci-fi movie, like Rise of the Machines. They look like marching robots as far as the eye can see. So much for the pristine beauty of nature.

Oh, and Mandible Claw, your link showing all those useful CO2 filtering devices...LOL! We all learned that in 1st grade! How come the uber-intellectuals don't know this?

Most of the world's photosynthesis occurs in the ocean. About 80-90% of the carbon dioxide/oxygen conversion is due to algae. If you want to step it up a little, then the treatment is iron oxide in many of the world's oceans. If somebody was really nuts and believed the global warming lies and was silly enough to believe that carbon dioxide is bad (it isn't if you like to eat), they could get some ships and scatter iron oxide in powder over thousands of square miles of oceans. Of course, a lot of ocean would turn to a kind of green sludge sort of like pea soup--and it would suck a lot of carbon dioxide out of the air by locking it up in trillions of tons of organic matter as well as converting a lot of it to oxygen.

This would probably not affect the climate at all. It would have so little effect that you might just as well plant a tree. If a dog peed on the tree the effect on the world's water supply would be about the same as the effect the tree has on the world's carbon dioxide.

van - i tried to email this to you but dhimmi carter's site said there was an error.