Here's a bit of news for you Global Warming enthusiasts: Parts of Sweden (Goteland and East Svealand) are experiencing their coldest December in 110 years.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/kallaste-december-pa-110-ar_5830233.svd
Why do you think they are now calling it "climate change"?
I am sure Al Gore must have an explanation for all this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Gary, once again you prove that you don't even understand what the issue is all about.
Nobody has ever said that we'd never see cold winters again. In fact, what has been said is that we'd see more extreme weather.
And for the billionth time, it's about AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES - not the temperature in a specific location at a specific time of year.
If this supposedly debunks global warming, does that mean that since the LA area (where you live) having record-breaking fall temperatures proves it? (No, it doesn't, but using your warped logic it does.)
You're really making a fool out of yourself. If you're not going to believe it, fine, but at least learn what it is. Your argument makes as much sense as saying, "I don't believe that the world is spherical because I don't fall off of it."
Well, Al Gore doesn't have an explanation, but Lance does.
I think the ice in his Kool Aid must be melting.
Al Gore's probably smarter than me in that he doesn't waste time in debunking somebody who can't even take the time to understand the issue.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Lance,
I'm not sad, but I will be if we all have to pay more and more in taxes and fees "to protect the environment" and the US has to ship more of its wealth to the third world -in addition to all the foreign aid we already ship. and we have to surrender more of our freedoms to the UN.
And you know what? Even is all that happens, it won't make any difference.
Al Gore is NOT all that smart, because he leaves a valid concern open to question by knee-jerk nonsense such as Gary posted here. Lance is a bit more on target.
As far as long-term trends, go, in my childhood the upper midwest experienced periods of one to two weeks, more than once a winter, with temperatures at about 20 below zero, before factoring in wind chill. I used to walk to and from school in it. Today, it is rare for temperatures to drop below zero at all, and not for more than a week, in the southern half of Wisconsin. (Upper Minnesota is colder, but they use to hit 30 below for a couple of weeks at a time). Snowfall is also much reduced.
One problem with global warming or climate change as an issue is that people respond politically based on how they are feeling on the day someone asks their opinion. If it s 90 degree 90% humidity summer day, people want something done about global warming. If there are twenty inches of snow on the ground, many of the same people will laugh at the very idea. Gary applauds the latter response, while no doubt offering some sober, long-term-scientific thinking that an unbearably hot day doesn't prove a long term trend.
As for Sweden, the long term prognosis for rising average global temperature is that the entire mechanism powering the Gulf Stream will lapse, which will indeed make northern Europe much colder. I doubt if that is the cause of THIS cold snap THIS year, but it puts into perspective what nonsense Gary's sniping on the issue has devolved to.
A true conservative looks at facts, and seeks rational conclusions. Gary, like the so-called "liberals" he decries, looks at facts, and cherry picks those which support his pre-existing judgement. (That's called, clinically, "prejudice": pre - judice.)
I swear, Gary, this is EXACTLY like debating a 9/11 "truther". Facts don't matter. All that matters is the conspiracy narrative.
Hey Lance,
Did'ya hear? The Eagles-Vikings game in Philly was cancelled because of snow. I guess they figured it would melt in the middle of the game and drown the fans and players.
Gary, just man up and admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
For future reference: NOBODY'S SAYING THAT WE WON'T SEE COLD WEATHER ANYMORE.
With that said, using my psychic powers, I predict that in the future, Gary Fouse will once again point to a cold day somewhere as proof that there's nothing to the whole Global Warming issue.
Your psychic powers are right on.
How many times have I stated that I don't know what the truth is? I don't think you do either. I am not prepared to turn the world and our economy and our way of life upside down until I do know the truth.
Gary, you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
You've shown again and again that you're not even interested in knowing the facts on this issue. Again, I could respect your skepticism if you at least showed that you knew what the issue is. But you keep bringing up these completely irrelevant things like how it's cold in Sweden right now, when nobody ever said that there wouldn't be cold winters anymore.
If anything is going to turn the world upside down, it's going to be the consequences of climate change. We're already experiencing them right now, and if you cared to learn about it, you could.
Tell you what, Lance. You worry about it all you want. I got what is the rest of a life to live.
The only pattern I see is the well established Leftist one. First, identify ( or create ) a crises nobody ever knew about or cared about before. Something we have been living with throughout history doesn't disqualify it at all. Some emergency that is particularly hard on disadvantaged (like the poor, children, polar bears, gays, Palestinians, etc.) makes it a better cause. Then they have to make as many as possible feel compelled to DO SOMETHING about it. This is all made better if the FAULT is the rich, the West, or the industrious. No matter how much it cost and how unlikely the proposed fixes are, they have to be undertaken. It is extremely useful if the handwringers can make a buck or two in the fixing process. Then make all the skeptics out as ignorant or malovent.
Every Lefty Cause doesn't coincide with every data point on the curve but a preponderance will do in the meantime. All of them typically share what Sowell calls, "Stage One Thinking". In other words, only the immediate fix counts and consequences of the fix are never considered.
.
And like the vice-president (with an uncanny resemblance to Dick Cheney) in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," Gary will manfully admit he was wrong when two thirds of the United States is
(a) depopulated by drought, or,
(b) buried under twenty feet of snow year round.
It would be nice if Lance and I could save ourselves by lowering our own personal carbon footprints. It would be nice if the U.S. could save itself regardless of what China and India do. It would be nice if Bangla Desh could prevent flooding of the Ganges Delta by its own virtue, never mind how much carbon dioxide other countries are pumping into the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, we are all in this together. So, if I'm right, I must coerce Gary for his own good. And if Gary is right, he must not let me. If Gary wins, but I turn out to be right, his manful apology will be cold comfort.
Actually, it doesn't have to be bad for our economy. The increased costs will be manageable, and we will still have advanced technology, just whole new technologies that are safer and cleaner. The Economist, a magazine Miggie never heard of before I cited to an article in its pages, which he instantly distrusted because I referenced it, suggests that reducing carbon footprint is virtually hopeless, due to global political gridlock, and we might as well focus on survival and mitigation of the consequences. They may be right.
It really is too bad everyone has so much cheap emotional baggage piled up on this issue.
P.S. Condeleeza Rice reads Economist. Maybe Miggie doesn't trust conservatives who are black or female. Nah, that's being unfair. He's probably just a crusty old curmudgeon who doesn't think about what he says.
I'd be impressed if Miggie or Gary could even define what global warming is actually all about - rather than this strawman version of it that they like to so easily debunk.
Sad but true Lance... neither one has paid enough attention to the science to give a coherent refutation. There are a few scientists who have plausibly done so. I don't find them convincing, but their analysis must be considered and thoughtfully answered. One cannot thoughtfully answer what is spouted without any thought.
Post a Comment