« Celebrating Multiculturalism in Phoenix | Main | Police Dismayed by Obama's Race-Baiting »

"fluctuations in the climate are not caused by capitalism."

Until now, I didn't think was possible to distill this global warming hooey down to fewer than 10 words.

This is not good news for Senator Ma'am Bitch.

Capitalism may rawk hard, but nothing we do can effect the climate of the whole planet.

None of this matters, it wont stop the watermellons in power from going Green and putting us all in the poor house. They will just say its all lies and they were paid off by BIG OIL to do this research or some such nonsense.

but didn't i see a commercial with newt and nancy stating that global warming was something "everyone" agrees is a huge problem?

AL GORE,GREENPEACE are a bunch of green liars and they have been lying to us for far too long

I suppose this is not a great place to be pointing out that cleaner air decreases healthcare costs, improves general well-being, and is worth doing, regardless? Cap-and-trade is keyed to CO2 emissions, but those same plants create the really scary shit; hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, arsenides, etc etc... and if those polluters curb their CO2 emissions, those corollary emissions will by necessity decrease as well.

Come now, based on a casual observation of the content of this site you are all loony-right-wingers... healthcare has got to be on your minds these days. And cleaner air is one of those things that will decrease healthcare costs and not force you to cry about the government replacing the insurance companies as arbiters of well-being.

You should all be delighted at the prospect of something completely unrelated to healthcare itself that will keep you away from the scary GOVERNMENT PLAN!

You should all be delighted at the prospect of something completely unrelated to healthcare itself that will keep you away from the scary GOVERNMENT PLAN!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

So now the argument for cap&trade centers on reducing health-care costs? So which do we need more cap&trade or obamacare, is that the false-choice dujour? truly there is no end to the liberals logical rabbit-holes, these talking-points are getting nuttier by the hour.

cap&trade = cap and trade

I wonder how our anonymous leftist idiot proposes we stop excreting C02.

C02 is a pollutant? Tell it to the plants.

Anonymous,

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Go to page 30. Refute.

There is no better example of a liberal lie, liberals being caught in the lie and then continuing to lie.

For the science of global warming, this would be called fraud.
For liberalism, this would be called the first fundamental principle.

Nah, he's desperately trying to tie the CO2 to other various nasties that some of these wicked evil polluters produce in stunningly tiny amounts, that we should appreciate the reduction in CO2 emission because these other substances will therefore also be reduced, thereby reducing our dependence on the healthcare system (which will incidentally no longer be able to support us anyway) so we should be throwing our support unquestioningly into the effort to reduce CO2 emmission. It's a good thing, yanno.

Knowing full well that:
1) The thing we should really worry about is global stagnation (no cooling or warming at all), because Earth is not a static system (applies to extinctions and new species discoveries as well).
2) Crap Charade is a power grab, not a solution.
3) Chasing AGW via CO2 is a red herring.

Cleaner air is a good idea. Making cleaner, renewable sources available is noble enough, but should be (and has recently been) in the free market. I have a 100% wind power contract. I'm glad I lived in the America that allowed me to make that choice without government coercion.

My curiosity, and would like to see more links if someone has them, is that this study deals with tropospheric temperature. Much of the science I've read tends to downplay atmospheric temperature shifts, as they supply far less heat than oceanic temperature shift (heat capacity of water being much greater than air/gases).

I spoke with an oceanographer (a conservative academic, in fact) and his thoughts on the issue were purely data-driven:
-High C02 is indisputable
-1 degree of change on the Kelvin (absolute T rather than Celsius) scale is statistically small, but so is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
-that the oceanic response to CO2 concentration is well noted
-this does not validate that 100% of the temperature effect is man-made, however, because the CO2 is not 100% man-made.

I'v read the stuff on junkscience.com, and surfacestations.org. I'd like some other links as well. Preferably scientist-driven. Having survived the ice age that hit in 70's, I'd kinda like to stay away from the reporters, and hear the observers take on it...

Anonymous at July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

I don't see anyone arguing in favor of pollution.

By your logic, we could cure swine flu with a different spelling for "football".

Liberals:

Football is connected by "pigskin"

Posted by: Anonymous at July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

So we should expensively regulate something that isn't pollution in order to indirectly reduce real pollution?

Every leftist program, from climate science to health care to social justice, etc, have far less to do with climate, health, or justice, and far more to do with power.

Coercion, revisionism, and imposition are necessities for the leftist agenda to proceed. When you're a coercive utopian/progressive who, by self-proclaimed definition, is so intellectually superior to those feebleminded conservatives, you realize that if your utopia can't rise naturally from below, it must be imposed from above. It has resulted in The Climate Industrial Complex that carries a list of impositions so vast that it's sure to make even a fatalistic leftist giddy with joy.

I'd also like to forward this stuff along along.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/human-global-warming.jpg

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/neareast/GTEMPS.gif

We go through periods and the shifts are just becoming less severe.

lvb-rocks,

Spot-on. You couldn't be more right when you say "if your utopia can't rise naturally from below, it must be imposed from above." Their artificial "supremacy" somehow empowers them to rule with "divine knowledge" that the "lowers" can't understand... even though we know their thoughts are based on mindless drivel that is worth nothing in reality-land.

Just a power grab, as you so eloquently stated.

Crit Zer0 and lvb-rocks...

'Inanimus' is the voice of The Climate Industrial Complex but his ozone-lie has a hole in it.

Go to www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/...Professor Easterbrook.

Go to www.globalwarmingheartland.org and see the "nipcc report". You can also scroll down to "A Primer on Global Warming".

When I was a kid in Little League baseball one of the older kids would reach around and tap me on the back of the head while we were sitting in the dugout. One day the coach saw him and told him to stop. The kid said he didn't do it. The coach said, "I saw you do it!". So the kid went into what I now call the 'Inanimus Mode'.....He said I looked at him funny. When that didn't work he said, "everyone does it". When that also failed he said he didn't know what got into him. As the coach chastised him again he replied, "Shouldn't we be focusing on the other team?"

Inanimus and the Lefties have lost this argument so they pretend it didn't happen and they move on to another cause they FEEL strongly about, but which can't be backed up by FACTS.

dance monkeys dance!

Strange when those imprisoned by strict evolutionist theory call those outside the cage monkeys.........

I suppose this is not a great place to be pointing out that cleaner air decreases healthcare costs, improves general well-being, and is worth doing, regardless? Cap-and-trade is keyed to CO2 emissions, but those same plants create the really scary shit; hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, arsenides, etc etc... and if those polluters curb their CO2 emissions, those corollary emissions will by necessity decrease as well.

Come now, based on a casual observation of the content of this site you are all loony-right-wingers... healthcare has got to be on your minds these days. And cleaner air is one of those things that will decrease healthcare costs and not force you to cry about the government replacing the insurance companies as arbiters of well-being.

Dumbnonymous, doesn't that fact that the human life expectancy has been increasing exactly at the same time the air pollution is increasing, pretty much invalidate all of your points?

Really, it's time for all eco-zealots to come to grasp reality that their irrational man-caused Global Warming quasi-religion is false.

Nah, he's desperately trying to tie the CO2 to other various nasties

Yeah, you're probably going to see more of that. As more information is made available indicating that CO2 is harmless, they'll be looking for a new bogeyman.

This man caused climate change nonsense is nothing more than the American Left's eugenics.

It is a pseudoscience that they use to justify ramming all of their wacko fascist agendas down unwilling throats. Their only real interest is controlling every minutiae of the behavior and activities of everyone around them.

And they'll fight tooth and nail to maintain the integrity of this sham, because they've based half of their political platform on this hoax. Ever notice how nearly every issue they support, is meant to "save the planet?"

Let the moonbats go save their own god damned planet, and take their tin foil hats with them.

Global Cooling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=564ed42f-802a-23ad-4570-3399477b1393

Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm

Could we be wrong about global warming?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html

I just read a short while ago that Argentina got slammed by a huge snow storm. One city recorded a low of about -16 degrees C. For the rest of us, that's about 3 degrees F.

I think its great that both India and China are telling the US (specifically Mrs. Clintoon) to stick it up her **** on this one.

"doesn't that fact that the human life expectancy has been increasing exactly at the same time the air pollution is increasing, pretty much invalidate all of your points?"

No, although that statement reminds me of just how poorly some people's grasp of cause and effect can be...

If there is a saturation level beyond which people start dropping left and right... it is already too late. See how I am capable of actually looking into the future more than 15 seconds, and THINKING about possible outcomes? And see how smug you try to be while literally holding up a sign proclaiming you inability to do the same? This same disparity applies to healthcare, environmental policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy... "conservatives" are just too damn shortsighted to acknowledge the fact that the future is not just the next double-cheeseburger and a beer during the FoxNews commercials. There is a long view that both makes more sense and is more sustainable. If you don't 'get it' that is not the fault of the ideas, it is the fault of the brains incapable of processing the ideas.

That I can't help you with, folks. Some people are just stupid. Such is life.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"...

AlphaMail:
I think that kid that used to tap you on the head in the dugout is blogging here under the name of anonymous. He uses the very same arguments. Obviously anonymous reminded you of him. Are you sure it's not the same kid?

Inanimus...

I guess I just don't 'get it'.

I know it's not the fault of ideas.

But it's not brains incapable of processing ideas.

Could it be incapable brains producing faulty ideas?

Can anyone help me spell eleetist?

Jim.....

No it's not him. That kid died a couple years ago.

It's still conjecture how he died.

Some say it was a penitent suicide since it was around the time of the Abu Ghraib photos.

Others say he simply gave up the ghost when he realized reality actually has a well-known conservative bias.

I personally think he got the swine flu, confused his fever with global warming, got overheated like most liberals do, and cooked in his own juices.

You may also be interested to read Merryfield's paper exploring whether or not the Southern Oscillation is affected by atmospheric loading of CO2, and, if so, to what extent.

http://www.ocgy.ubc.ca/~yzq/books/paper5_IPCC_revised/Merryfield2006.pdf

I just wanted to give all you moonbatters and especially our host Van Helsing the award for poorest propaganda I've seen this year.

Namely: study doesn't mention capitalism, that is just added on top for propagandistic flavor.

2. One peer reviewed journal article can bring an entire theory into dispute or rapid decline, but it can hardly be said that this article proves global warming a lie. The headline of this blog post is a lie, unless someone can point out the basis for its assertion, because it certainly was not in that journal article.

You people seem as unwilling as any liberal kook to troubleshoot and strengthen and challenge your own assumptions, much less your statements. I just pointed out two examples of where the ideology intruded and obscured what is quite frankly a complex and difficult to understand topic. So don't act like you know, like you can tell who is lying and why, unless you can back up those claims with some suitable "science" OK?

My conclusion: Excellence in science and fact is not the goal here on moonbattery, its more about entertaining yourselves by attempting to discredit what you often only think you understand.

cave ahht.....

It took you eleven hours since I posted some 'suitable science' on this scroll for you to peruse regarding this 'complex and difficult to understand topic'. I don't care if you believe the science I listed or not, the point is, I suggested another scientific outlook and you and your closed-mindset didn't take the time to look at it. Are you the new Climate Czar?

People like you are the reason America is so divided. You make your own God-like assessment of the problem, you ignore other opinions or possibilities while lying and saying you're open to them, and then you post blathering condescending pieces of crap which ridicule others and reveal your sniveling pettiness.

You're all rant and no reason. You'll be a tidy fit in the new Gestapo.

AlphaMail: Does this "suitable science" address the "lie" hypothesis that Van Helsing asserts in the headline? Do you still misunderstand what I'm saying?

Global warming is incorrect and not supported by further data and research according to this article.

Global warming is a lie, according to this article.

see the difference?

I wish the [alarmists] would post something worth while. It seems to be all political in nature, with no scientific backing or substance.

Please, alarmists, post something of interest. Something other than politics, so that we can scientifically explain why you are probably wrong.

Just pick one (major) arguement from your AGW theory and go with it.

Please? We are only here to help :)

Cave fahht is obviously unfamiliar with the notion that a thinking person may be allowed to place a fact into a broader context.

Fact: A peer-reviewed article finds that human factors are insignificant contributors to global climate.

Broader context: The environmentalist left has been seeking to destroy capitalism on the basis that human factors are the sole or primary cause of global climate change.

Van Helsing, as a thinking, analytical human being is allowed to place Fact A. into Context B. Even if Context B is screaming, "No, it's too big. Pull it out! Pull it out!"

Global warming is a political money grab/fraud because:
1. No one is trying to make money on the next ice age.
2. 360 parts per million = 0.000035
3. Mars has an atmospheric CO2 content of 96%, and it was not effected by anything but the SUN (the suvs we sent there are SOLAR powered).
4. The effects of water vapor were EXCLUDED from all "scientific" measurements.
5. Moonbats are moonbats.

It seems like every night in the news for the past several years a similar story is being reported. All these stories, of course, have something to do with the issue of global warming . Global warming is a potentially dangerous problem for all people of the Earth, but is it real? Al Gore in his popular, two-time Academy Award winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," clearly believes global warming exists, is a very large problem for the Earth's environment, mainly caused by carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. I believe Al Gore's beliefs in global warming are true; however, I believe that many other factors can be attributed to the problem.

For on the debate on global warming visit http://en.oboulo.com/the-debate-on-global-warming-65164.html

Is this really the best you can do people?

I'm asking for the basis for Van Helsing's assertion that scientists have proven global warming to be not incorrect, but a lie.

This article can be brought into a broader context, for sure v the k, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Lets not just plug the latest scientific analysis into our favorite leftist conspiracy of mental illness and call it "science" OK?

I'll ask one more time: How and where does this paper show Van Helsing's title to be true, where are the facts supporting this assertion, or is it just the usual propaganda that supports a well known conservative political stance.

Show me what you got, because so far it looks pretty grim.

"One peer reviewed journal article can bring an entire theory into dispute or rapid decline,"

But, but, but... The Goracle said the debate is over.

I'm so confused....

Eric at July 25, 2009 7:33 AM


Mars has an atmospheric CO2 content of 96%, and it was not effected by anything but the SUN.

The CO2 content is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect since the atmosphere of Mars is too thin to retain enough heat to set up a positive feedback cycle.
On the other hand, Venus has a dense atmosphere with a high concentration of CO2 and you may want to go there to experience your greenhouse effect.

cave ahht at July 25, 2009 9:13 AM
I'm asking for the basis for Van Helsing's assertion that scientists have proven global warming to be not incorrect, but a lie.
VH said nothing in the post about "proof"; that's your assertion.
Various postings for a long time on this site have gone over many different pieces of evidence indicating that alot of the science behind global warming today is akin to what the racial IQ evidence was like in the 50's and 60's: garabage.
Unfortunately, the GW debate has lifted off from the domain of scientific inquiry to become almost strictly political. My take is that the title reflects what posters here have known all along.

BTW if you want to discuss the science, try specifics...its probably the case that no one here wants to run out all the evidence against GW for you to then simply be confronted with the usual platitudes.

Just my gratuitous advice.

I suppose this is not a great place to be pointing out that cleaner air decreases healthcare costs, improves general well-being, and is worth doing, regardless?

I would Imagine decreasing plane crashes, car wreaks, and suicide attempts would also "decrease healthcare costs" possibly also so let's just write a new law making them illegal Ok?

Perhaps we could "improve the general well-being" of people if we taxed people for talking to loud, playing music to loud, cutting in line, wearing things like a spedo or spandex when they wiegh 500 pounds and other idiotc rude behavior.

Like you said "it's worth doing, regardless" mostly just because YOU said so? get a clue!! There are any number of things that would fit into the catagories you cite and NONE of them need more laws and regulation to resolve them notwithstanding that even if a plane crash were illegal it would still happen. Try a little harder to come up with such a lame comparison to sell your lame ideas.

Cap-and-trade is keyed to CO2 emissions, but those same plants create the really scary shit; hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, arsenides, etc etc... and if those polluters curb their CO2 emissions, those corollary emissions will by necessity decrease as well.

If only we could convince plantlife to stop emmiting C02 it would solve EVERYTHING wouldn't it? I know lets TAX vegitation, especially those nasty evergreens!!! Ohh... How about we regulate snakes to because they carry poison in their fangs!! And those icky spiders tooo!! There are a multitude of NATURALLY occuring substances that are just as lethal and dangerous as the tiny amount of contaminants released by energy production. Cap & Steal has almost NOTHING to do with the ridiculous claim or "emmision" reduction.

Come now, based on a casual observation of the content of this site you are all loony-right-wingers...

Can't you come up with a better insult than that? Why is it you are so compelled to ignore the data and opinions presented that contradict your dreamworld?

healthcare has got to be on your minds these days.

Only because communists like you keep trying to help the government take over something it is expressly forbidden from doing according to the 10th amendment.

cleaner air is one of those things that will decrease healthcare costs and not force you to cry about the government replacing the insurance companies as arbiters of well-being.

Based on exactly what criteria do you consider it "clean air" sutable for consumption? Feel free to prove how you can provide this clean air with all the varied impacts of Volcanic ash, dust, pollen, smoke from fires, bacteria from decaying animals, mites, and a million other "conaminents" that occur naturally. Aparently you don't know the differece between "heath INSURANCE" and heath CARE" which are completly different and have totally different requirements for succes.

You should all be delighted at the prospect of something completely unrelated to healthcare itself that will keep you away from the scary GOVERNMENT PLAN!

Actually we get really tired of dealing with the idiocy and fantasy world morons like you keep trying to force everyone else to adopt because YOU are to stupid to manage your own life.

If there is a saturation level beyond which people start dropping left and right... it is already too late.

Gee I wonder what would happen if a meterote just happened to hit earth again? It wiped out the Dinosaurs pretty easily, and I would imagine it had nearly the same effect as Krakatoa, St Helens, or any of the other NATURAL DISATERS over the centuries that have killed millions. What was the name of that city.... Oh right Pompei. I'm sure higher taxes really helped THEM when the lava swallowed them up dummy!!

See how I am capable of actually looking into the future more than 15 seconds, and THINKING about possible outcomes?

Actually, so far you've proven you pretty clueless because you have absolutely no concept of all of the naturally ocurring events that do tremendous damage to air quality, loss of life, and human suffering. Based on the MILLIONS of years earth has been around and the sheer number and frequency of these occurances you seem completly oblivious to them as a potential threat. Oh and oddly enough the idiot politician Al Gore, the moron you worship blindly, is just as obtuse about it.

And see how smug you try to be while literally holding up a sign proclaiming you inability to do the same?

We are only "smug" because we have to waste some much time trying to educate such mentally retarded idiots like you who actually believe in this joke of a hoax. Because you spend so much time in dreamland believing you're so self important and so superior to everyone else we don't need a sign anymore to point out how dumb you are. Just the moronic uniformed tripe you dribble proves it well enough.

This same disparity applies to healthcare, environmental policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy...

The only disparity is the distance between what is know and proven and the fantasyland you live in, but you're a liberal so you are not very sure where reality is that must be why you can't seem to locate it.

"conservatives" are just too damn shortsighted to acknowledge the fact that the future is not just the next double-cheeseburger and a beer during the FoxNews commercials.

Condesention and insults from the "tolerant one" and "the intelectual superior" of those who post here. Add in a little jab at the network KNOW for balanced coverage that's devasting the other networks in veiwership out of spite and fear and you have almost the perfect liberal compliment.

There is a long view that both makes more sense and is more sustainable.

while this statement is actually true, it's spoken by someone who supports every policy know that will achieve the direct opisite of "sustainable" or a "long view" of the damage it will do economically. Why do you communists always want to talk like we do when you would like your policies adopted? Why not try honesty.... Oh nevermind THAT'S far to big a challeng for a liberal to deal with.

If you don't 'get it' that is not the fault of the ideas, it is the fault of the brains incapable of processing the ideas.

Well you've proven your "brain" is extremely "incapable of processing the ideas" that actually have been proven to work thusfar.

That I can't help you with, folks. Some people are just stupid. Such is life.

Well YOU and Odumbo are definate proof of that assesment!! Thanks for admitting how dumb you are now, it makes it so much more fun for me to dismantle your idiotic beliefs.

cave ahht,

The basis for GHG theory, specifically water vapor, is wrong. According to Wikipedia, without water vapor, our planet would [most likely] be colder than at present.

Wrong.

Water vapor warms, but to a much lesser degree when compared to the overall [cooling] effect of it:

The average high in Nashua, NH for June was [5.4 degrees cooler] than normal, due to all the clouds. But the average low was only [0.2 degrees warmer] than normal for the same reason.

Water vapor is, austensibly, a [product] of warming, not a [producer] of it. It prevents some of the suns energy from reaching and warming the surface of the earth.

Secondly, our atmosphere is, for all intent and purpose, warmer near the surface, and cooler away from it. Please explain how an upper level [cold] CO2 molecule, can transfer HEAT to a nearer surface, lower level [warm] molecule.

2nd law of thermodynamics: Heat transfers from warm to cold, not the reverse.

Is it time yet to take away this man's Nobel Prize?
He can keep the worthless Oscar, as consultion, but its further embarassment to the Nobel Committee to allow this hucster to keep it

how is global warming not just incorrect, but a literal deception. a lie? How did scientists prove that others were lying, as opposed to proving other scientists were incorrect?

Its like you still don't understand what i am saying. Or just don't have the desire to admit an obvious fabrication of Van Helsing's.

to Rich: im not going to argue climate science here, try and keep up.

Scientists were incorrect?

It's only common sense that for the theory of AGW to be wrong average temperatures would have to trend down consistently toward pre-industrial global temps, no? We haven't seen such a trend, even temporarily.

Michele,
CO2 buildup results in insufficient heat outflow into space.

The 2nd law is violated locally and at the smallest spatial and temporal scales all the time. The 2nd law is just a phenomenon of statistical averages.

There is a growing concern of fresh water shortage in several states of the US and global warming is an obvious reason. Rivers drying up, below normal rainfall, snow-pack in the mountains, combined with environmental restrictions on pumping water, have severely reduced the water supply in several regions. If you go to http://www.Bewaterwise.com, you’ll see how far our water reserve levels have dropped. They have a gauge on the site that looks like the fuel gauge in your car, but with three-color zones: Blue – good, Yellow - not good, and Red – bad. The needle on this gauge is dropping out of the blue zone and heading into the yellow zone which means Mandatory Conservation. You can also visit this page to see how much our water reserve levels have dipped steadily since July 2006:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/WaterAlert/

I suppose this is not a great place to be pointing out that cleaner air decreases healthcare costs, improves general well-being, and is worth doing, regardless?

I suppose this is a great place to point out that reducing obesity, improving eating and exercise habits improves the general well-being, is worth doing and would contribute significantly to reducing health care costs.

There is a growing concern of fresh water shortage in several states of the US and global warming is an obvious reason. Rivers drying up, below normal rainfall, snow-pack in the mountains, combined with environmental restrictions on pumping water, have severely reduced the water supply in several regions.

I would venture a guess that the correlating factors between AGW and water shortage are as short as you indicate the water supply is. I content that the water supply problem is a function of usage which is more closely tied to something we do have control over - population. It is time we start thinking about the effects of uncontrolled procreation on the future of this planet rather than finding canards such as AGW to focus our attention on.

what i dont get is that in all these forums, you people always post your OPINIONS and only rarely facts you've got, and some are just assumptions you believe to be true or not.
i personally believe that if you posted a thread that was all facts and no opinions, with no arguments, we would be able to make a fairly sdtable and thruthful thread that will be able to prove to damn near everyone the point we end up with.

(personally i do not believe that this is true or false)

wtf it days that dr hailstorm posted my post on here!?!?!?