Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII

Write another kick ass post this morning, but my cordless optical mouse low battery indicator light is now blinking wildly.

Damnit!

So now, the kick ass post will have to wait while I place my mouse in the cradle to recharge.

Update:  5-3-08

Ok, now that my batteries are recharged, let's move on, shall we:

Is this for real?  Scientists now predict global warming climate change will stop until at least 2015?  How convenient for them along the rest of the community who believe in this bullcrap.  Why?  Because now, they have seven years to figure out another excuse for the planet getting warmer cooler.  Not to mention, seven years to figure out a way to politicize global warming climate change even further, with the possibility of a United Nations "carbon tax" as well.  Don't think that will happen?  Just wait until Hillary or Obama get into the White House.  You'll see.

By the way, check out this sentence contained within the above link:

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

What the hell?  Can any of you read between the lines here?  They don't say how long "after" 2015, do they?  Nice going, and I caught that immediately.  "After" can be 1 month into 2015, or 100 years after 2015.  By the way, speaking of emissions, how about all of the greenhouse gas emissions you environmentalist/scientist asshats were willing to generate in order to produce your beloved ethanol?  Now you're all backing away from ethanol real quick, aren't you?  And yet, we're supposed to take you all seriously in terms of your "forecasts" of global warming.  Once again, I say "horse hockey!"

But wait,  There's more:

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

Of course it will.  The earth will warm back up, just like it always has in the past.  Plus, it will cool again, too.  It's warmed and cooled long before we humans were even around.

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

I wonder if these are the same people who generated the computer models related to how wonderful ethanol is, and the low impact it would have on the environment in terms of producing the stuff in the first place.

And then we have this, which reads, "Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014."  Notice the date published, and then notice the caption in the photo ... allow me to provide a screen shot of the little photo and caption for your viewing enjoyment:

lol_emissions

Do you even see the hypocrisy in the caption? "Overall warming trend is driven by greenhouse gas emissions." 

Again, you environmentalists and scientists both are the ones who were pushing for ethanol, which has been shown will create more greenhouse gas emissions than than the product(s) it intended to replace.  Give me a freaking break, folks.  Are we really supposed to take all of these whack jobs seriously anymore?  I can proudly admit, I never did, and I never will...ever.

Yeah, and when I read, "Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014," I sit back and laugh again because here we have a group of environmentalists/scientists predicting a "forecast" in not days or weeks, but years; and yet these same people cannot even accurately predict this weekend's weather.  Anyone else notice this hoo-haw?

Yeah, let's do everything we can in order to prevent drilling for oil.  We'll push ethanol down the throats of society, which will then generate food shortages.  As an added bonus we will generate more greenhouse gasses while merely producing ethanol than the technologies we've been told are bad for the environment in the first place.

These are exactly the same dunderheads who are telling us about global warming and how it's all our fault, and how we need to change our standards of living.

Like I said before, it's high time these people just shut up, and slink away back to the dark cave from which they apparently came (after all, if it were up to them, we'd all be living in caves, right?).  But then again, if they don't think oil is our future, then fine, I'll go along with that, too providing they all set the pattern.

That's right, show us how it's done. Immediately sell all of your internal combustion engine powered vehicles, ride a horse to work (no bicycles either, oil was used in the factory in one way, shape or form), sell your house and all the factory-made furniture, and live in a tent made from animal skins.  Live completely off the grid.  That means no solar cells; after all, oil was used in their production in one way, shape, or form.  Don't purchase any electronic items, and don't purchase anything made from plastics either.  That also means no toilet paper, paper towels, batteries, packaged foods, clothing, or anything else one can purchase from the "evil" capitalistic Wal Mart.  Come on, step up, start the ball rolling and show us how it's all done.  As soon as you set the standard by following the examples above, I'll follow suit.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that one.

Print | posted @ Friday, May 02, 2008 8:21 AM

Comments on this entry:

Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by Andy at 5/3/2008 12:51 PM

Love this guy that posted in one of the comments of that article:

"Part of scientific method means you look at data from many sources, experiments using different procedures and so on. The report which this article is based on is one brick in a large wall of data. On it's own, it doesn't necessarily mean a lot.

Also, independent climate experts are more reliable than the chaff denials spewed out by ultracapitalist right-wing think tanks, which are invariably based on logical fallacy, unproven ad hominem, or willful misunderstanding of science and scientific process. The type of which seem to be prevalent here.

Preparation is everything. We pay to keep potential threats at bay. We have armies even in peacetime so we can be ready in case an aggressor does arise. We pay insurance on our homes and cars in case something goes wrong. For an example of what happens when we don't consider such eventualities, take the recent credit crunch, where banks just ignored or overlooked the possibility that their financial bases were not secure. Look how much trouble that has caused us.

Man-made global warming may not be occurring. But the people with the best knowledge to judge think it is. To develop preventative measures is simply prudent. If it all turns out to be okay, all that's gone wrong is we've lost a spot of economic growth. If warming does happen and we've done nothing, it will be catastrophic."

The research that this article is reporting from uses one piece of data. ONE VARIABLE: The temperature of water around one coast of North America and the temperature of the water around Europe over the last 100 years.

As you say: "PUH-LEASE..." That's not science.
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by Braden at 5/3/2008 2:35 PM

And like what you believe in terms of global warming and such is.

There's a big "Puh-lease," Andy.

And I find it interesting you took it upon yourself to quote the (pretty much) political views of a commenter of the article.

Preparation is everything? You betcha. I wonder if the commenter believes in "preparation" it took when it came to the negative impact we now all face because of ethanol.

Like a previous commenter said before, the logic of "measure twice, cut once," is something the liberal mindset is not capable of.

There's your science, Andy.

Now, would you care to start setting the examples as I outlined above? Or will you "let someone else" do that?

;)
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by AxsDeny at 5/5/2008 10:37 AM

The people that pushed for ethanol use were (mostly) senators from farm states. Scientists said it was possible, but not necessarily a good idea. We all know that pragmatism isn’t a skill that the government has managed to master.

Scientists don’t set energy policy, nor did they decide that ethanol was the way to go. Lawmakers do and did. I _wish_ that our lawmakers were scientists. Heck, I wish our lawmakers would _listen_ to scientists. Perhaps they would be more apt to make pragmatic decisions rather than knee-jerk reactions to what’s in the news this week.
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by Braden at 5/5/2008 12:19 PM

"Scientists don’t set energy policy, nor did they decide that ethanol was the way to go. Lawmakers do and did. I _wish_ that our lawmakers were scientists. Heck, I wish our lawmakers would _listen_ to scientists. Perhaps they would be more apt to make pragmatic decisions rather than knee-jerk reactions to what’s in the news this week."

That being said, then where did the lawmakers get the information to determine ethanol was the way to go?

The environmental movement?
Things that make you go hmmmmm....
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by AxsDeny at 5/5/2008 3:53 PM

Ugh. Andy is right. Your use of non-sequiturs is infuriating and mind-boggling.
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by Braden at 5/5/2008 9:16 PM

Ugh, how did you not comprehend my response? You said you wish our lawmakers were scientists. I responded back with:

That being said, then where did the lawmakers get the information to determine ethanol was the way to go?

The environmental movement?
Things that make you go hmmmmm...."

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough for you:

WHERE did our lawmakers get the information which coerced them into their decision to favor ethanol?

I'm surprised at you, Deny. All you can do is accuse me of being illogical when I simply asked you the question after your reading your response in comment #2610.

Again, I'll ask you:

WHERE did our lawmakers get the information which coerced them into their decision to favor ethanol?
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by AxsDeny at 5/6/2008 9:59 AM

I hoped you would divine the info from what I posted, but I'll clarify.

"The people that pushed for ethanol use were (mostly) senators from farm states. Scientists said it was possible, but not necessarily a good idea. We all know that pragmatism isn’t a skill that the government has managed to master."

Essentially what happened in the late 90s and early 00s was that a ton of research was being done to determine what we could do with our massive stockpiles of excess corn. We had _way_ too much of it for a long time so it had become very cheap. It was destroying the midwest corn farmer, but due to weird loopholes in our corn subsudy program, they essentially _had_ to keep producing corn. A similar thing happened in the early 80s which caused the switch in our foods from sugar to HFCS. Anyway, once the researchers were through, the reports that were given indicated that corn (and other) ethanol could be used as a gasoline additive to increase MPG ratings. The reports also indicated that the amount of land and resources needed to use this as a long term solution wasn't viable. The ROI just wasn't high enough. However, the lawmakers from the farm states heard what they wanted; that it was possible. This meant that they (understandably) seized on this (being politicians and all) as a potential bonus for their constituents.

They got the information from scientists, but they only paid attention to the part they wanted to hear. The part that worked for them. They heard a positive and ignored the negative. I'm not surprised by this though. Politicians of all affiliations have been doing this for centuries.
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by Braden at 5/6/2008 12:54 PM

I have to agree with you on our lawmakers getting their information from scientists; however I don't agree with you when you said "...but they only paid attention to the part they wanted to hear." Why? Because it's obvious not all of our lawmakers are from "farm states" as you indicated.

However, a lot of our lawmakers have swallowed the global warming/cooling kool-aid, so they used this opportunity as a chance to further their agenda(s) in that area.

But then again, I could be talking out of my ass, like Andy thinks I do.
  
Gravatar # re: Damn That Man Made Global Warming! - Part VIII
by AxsDeny at 5/9/2008 1:14 PM

"it's obvious not all of our lawmakers are from "farm states" as you indicated."

That is indeed true, but most of the congress-critters that are on the Agriculture sub-committee (the ones that draft the Farm Bill) are from farm state. Once they complete the draft, it gets sent to the full house and senate for approval. Based on how large the Farm Bill has become, I"m sure not all of them looked into the environmental downfalls of all the inclusions in the bill.

*shrug* Just my $0.02 on how stuff fails to get done properly in the legislative branch.
  
Comments have been closed on this topic.