Brrr !!!

So much for the Global Warming kooks. As I sit here in my nice Southern

California abode, it is 43 degrees. That’s about 20 degrees below normal. I’m sitting here with the gas fireplace roaring just to stay warm. In a few minutes I’m going mountain biking. Of course, I’ve got on full sweats and

I’ve got a nice pair of warm gloves for the trip back down the mountain. Yes, folks, here in the land of surfing, palm trees, and bikinis, it feels more like, say, Pittsburgh.

Of course, the Global Warming kooks never mention it when the weather is below normal. They only focus on places where the temps are above normal. How convenient, you know. Also, just got off the phone with my folks. They’re in Florida, right on the water. If sea levels are rising, it’s not enough to where you can actually notice it. And when you’re right on the beach, it’s pretty hard not to notice.

Global Warming is so 90′s. It’s the latest Fashionable Worry. In the 70′s, they tried to scare us with overpopulation. They said if we didn’t take drastic measures soon, we were all gonna die. In the 80′s, they tried to scare us with the Great Heterosexual AIDS epidemic. If we didn’t take drastic action, we were all gonna die. Well, those hoaxes never did pan out. So why should we believe this latest hoax?

49 Comments

  1. Of course, the Global Warming kooks never mention it when the weather is below normal. They only focus on places where the temps are above normal. How convenient, you know.

    —-
    2012 hottest year on record, federal agency says

    The first eight months of 2012 were the hottest ever recorded in the continental United States and the summer period of June, July and August was the third hottest ever, the National Climatic Data Center reported Monday.

    Although the August average of 74.4 degrees Fahrenheit made it only the 16th hottest August on record, the hottest July ever combined with the hottest spring on record to keep January-August 2012 atop the record books.

    The nation as a whole is averaging 4 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the year. That’s a full degree higher than the same period in 2006, the second hottest January-August on record.
    —-

    Go back to talking to your imaginary Hollywood pals, Eric.

  2. The first eight months of 2012 were the hottest ever recorded in the continental United States and the summer period of June, July and August was the third hottest ever, the National Climatic Data Center reported Monday.

    Don’t you just LOVE this cherry picking of data? Certain months were “Hot”. Well, what about the other months, you know, the ones that were conveniently left out?

  3. Also, not only do the Global Warming kooks cherry pick the time frames for alleged “Warming”, they cherry pick the location, too. Note that the Troll’s cite mentions nothing about weather in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else. Just as long as it’s temporarly warmer than average somewhere, well, that’s good enough for them. It’s like making claims about the national murder rate when your only data point is Chicago.

  4. Don’t you just LOVE this cherry picking of data? Certain months were “Hot”. Well, what about the other months, you know, the ones that were conveniently left out?

    You mean the last four months of 2012, which require a lead time to gather data and analyse?

    If you’d bothered to look, you’d see that they kept updating it – now up to December 2012.

    And guess what they said about 2012 as a whole? –


    2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States with the year consisting of a record warm spring, second warmest summer, fourth warmest winter and a warmer-than-average autumn. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year.

    The average precipitation total for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, making it the 15th driest year on record for the nation. At its peak in July, the drought of 2012 engulfed 61 percent of the nation with the Mountain West, Great Plains, and Midwest experiencing the most intense drought conditions. The dry conditions proved ideal for wildfires in the West, charring 9.2 million acres — the third highest on record.
    —-

    Don’t you just LOVE this cherry picking of data?

    Mmm – you’re talking about an agency that gathers temperature data from throughout the United States and makes comparisons on a databse going back over a hundred years. And you base your observation on a single loon looking out his window on a winter’s day.

    You really are an idiot, Eric.

  5. And there’s one more problem with these frauds – they never have a viable solution to their alarmist predictions. Keep in mind that the kooks aren’t merely saying the Earth will get a little bit warmer, hey, we could all live with that. No, they say Global Warming will be catastrophic. That is the central claim of their self-proclaimed leader, Al Gore.

    Now, let us, purely for the sake of argument, assume that Al Gore is right (never mind he has no background in science AT ALL). According to Gore, we are headed for catastrophe, a catastrophe that will kick in with a vengeance no later than the middle of this century. OK, then, what to do about it? In other words, a modest reduction in fossil fuels simply won’t do, we have to drastically reduce their use or, better yet, eliminate it entirely. Getting people to switch from Suburbans to Priuses just isn’t enough.

    So, Pho, what is YOUR side’s solution to this (largely imaginary) problem? Can you get rid of fossil fuel use without destroying the world’s economy? Are you and your ilk prepared to tell the rising middle classes in China, India, and elsewhere that they will have to forgo the comforts we white folks have enoyed for decades, you know, decent sized homes with central heat and air conditioning, motorized vehicles, air travel, etc?

    In short, is all your talk just a bunch of jabberwocky, or do you have an actual plan that would word in the real world and not just on some professor’s blackboard?

  6. Also, not only do the Global Warming kooks cherry pick the time frames for alleged “Warming”, they cherry pick the location, too. Note that the Troll’s cite mentions nothing about weather in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else

    Gee – maybe because it’s a media release from the NATIONAL Climatic Data Center?

    Now, we realise you’re a derp who can’t actually be bothered thinking before opening his mouth, but I’ll just point out that the same source also has information relating to global trneds, updated to November. Let’s take a look, shall we?

    —-
    The average September–November seasonal temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces was second warmest on record, behind 2005, at 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average. With ENSO-neutral conditions present during all three months in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean, the globally-averaged ocean temperature was the fourth warmest for September–November, with record warm temperatures observed in parts of the northeastern and southern North Atlantic Ocean and parts of the western Indian Ocean.

    Globally, the average land surface temperature was the third warmest September–November on record, behind 2005 and 2010. The Southern Hemisphere spring temperature was record warm, while the average Northern Hemisphere fall land temperature was fifth warmest. Record high temperatures for the period were observed in parts of both hemispheres, including the southwestern United States, part of northern Africa and southern Europe, regions in far eastern Russia, part of north central Australia, and swaths of central and northern South America. No seasonal record cold temperatures were observed during this period.
    —-

    And what data set inspired your piece?

    As I sit here in my nice Southern California abode, it is 43 degrees. That’s about 20 degrees below normal.

    So on teh one side we have the world’s climate scientists make global observations over more than a hundred years.

    And on the other side, we have a fool who looks out his window one day.

  7. Ooops, typo.

    In short, is all your talk just a bunch of jabberwocky, or do you have an actual plan that would word in the real world and not just on some professor’s blackboard?

    Word S/B work

  8. So, Pho, what is YOUR side’s solution to this (largely imaginary) problem?

    I’m sorry, derp, but you seem to have overlooked the teeny tiny point that possible solutions are irrelevant to establishing FIRST that there IS a problem.

    You’re like a person who, on being told he has cancer, insists that unless his doctor gives him a surefire cure, he therefore doesn’t have cancer.

    Derp, derp, derp.

  9. You mean the last four months of 2012, which require a lead time to gather data and analyse?

    Jesus, Pho, how much “Lead time” do you need to read a fucking thermometer??

    And that leads to another problem with the Global Warming kooks. The data keeps shifting. They say it is (slightly) warmer now than it was 100 years ago. Well, thermometers 100 years ago were a lot less accurate than they are today. Ever try to read an old style mercury thermometer? It’s accurate to maybe +/- 1 degree F. Which is about the temperature increase the kooks are claiming. Never mind we had far fewer weather stations back then, with large swaths of the country not measured at all.

    And of course that only applies to the US. How do we have a bloody clue if temperatures have gone up in Africa or the wilds of the Amazonian jungles when there was no one around to measure them? And never mind the oceans, which were barely measured at all.

    Truth is, we have, at best, a very approximate notion as to what world temperatures were 100 years ago, and 100 years from now, our data will me much better still, meaning today’s data will be, for them, fairly primitive.

  10. Jesus, Pho, how much “Lead time” do you need to read a fucking thermometer??

    Well, Eric, if you consider climate science to be just “reading a thermometer”, it’s no wonder you display only stupidity when discussing the subject.

    You could, for example, easily find out how scientists have determined the temperature in the past and how accurate they have been with a little research and open-mindedness.

    But since you’re the sort of twit who looks out his window on one winter’s day, goes “der, cold!!” and think that that’s more important than the actual science, you’re not capable of doing that research and having that open-mindedness, are you?

    You’re full of derp, and no wisdom.

  11. I’m sorry, derp, but you seem to have overlooked the teeny tiny point that possible solutions are irrelevant to establishing FIRST that there IS a problem.

    Well, dumbass, that’s why I led off my 2nd paragraph with the following statement:

    Now, let us, purely for the sake of argument, assume that Al Gore is right

    YOU’RE the one claiming there’s a problem, but now you want to weasel out of providing a solution. That’s because you HAVE no solution, just scare words and fear-mongering. You did not address a single one of the points I raised. Do you agree with my statement that, to avert the catastrophe Gore is predicting, we need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use, and we need to start doing it NOW, not 20 or 50 years from now? In which case, what is your ilk’s plan for doing so without simultaneously wrecking the world economy and driving vast numbers of people into poverty? And, in addition to being economically viable, it has to be politically viable as well. That means it has to function within a system of open democracies, it can’t be imposed from above by some form of global dictatorship.

    So, there you have it. Got any answers, or are you just gonna flap your gums?

  12. Pho cites a 4 year old movie that apparntly no one has ever seen:

    And, by serendipity, this flashed up in email just now.

    The Age of Stupid (2009) is a docudrama on the catastrophic effects of climate change. Set in 2055, Pete Postlethwaite’s archivist is the sole human survivor of a series of apocalyptic events set off by global warming. He looks back at video archives showing the mistakes of our generation that catalyzed these happenings.

    Personally, I thought the esteemed Mr. Postlethwaite was a lot more realistic when he was hunting dinosaurs in Jurassic Park II.

    I mean, seriously. It’s the year 2055 and he is the last surviving human??? Shit, Kevin Costner’s Waterworld was more believable than that!

    Don’t you see this is why we don’t take you Global Warming kooks seriously? It is this kind of extreme fear mongering which gets the lot of you dismissed as crackpots by most normal thinking people.

    Now, if you were realistic, you might say something like this: It is possible the Earth might warm up a couple degrees over the next few centuries, but that’s really little more than speculation on our part, since we are scientists, not prophets or fortune tellers. To which most reasonable folks might say “Fine, bring it on! We could use a little more warmer weather!” Especially if you lived in Canada or Russia or Scandinavia. It would open up more land for agriculture and settlement, and possibly clear the Arctic Ocean for shipping. All good things.

    But you kooks can’t just stop at that. No, you have to threaten us with a secular Apocalypse. And you wonder why the world yawns in response.

  13. YOU’RE the one claiming there’s a problem, but now you want to weasel out of providing a solution.

    Derp, I’m not weaseling out of anything. The existence of global climate change IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT from possible ways to address THE EFFECTS of global climate change. I am trying to demonstrate the fact of the first to a wingnut who is particularly proud of being ignorant – I have no need or duty to address the second. As far as I can tell, your assumptions on this are wrong, wrong, wrong, but this is irrelevant.

    Again, the cancer analogy. The fact that a person has cancer is something they first have to accept before their doctor can discusses possible treatments with them – because the cost of those treatments must be weighed against THE COSTS OF DOING NOTHING. The doctor might tell someone they have a choice between a $10,000 treatment with a 50% chance of working or a $100,000 treatment with a 70% chance of working, but this is irrelevant if they keep repeating they don’t have to pay anything because they don’t have cancer.

    The patient has cancer. He has to accept that before moving on to realistic assessment of possible treatments.

    The world has man-made global climate change. You have to accept that before you can move on to realistically discussing ways to address it. Otherwise any possible solution will be interrupted by you derping that climate change isn’t real.

  14. Now, if you were realistic, you might say something like this: It is possible the Earth might warm up a couple degrees over the next few centuries, but that’s really little more than speculation on our part, since we are scientists, not prophets or fortune tellers. To which most reasonable folks might say “Fine, bring it on! We could use a little more warmer weather!” Especially if you lived in Canada or Russia or Scandinavia. It would open up more land for agriculture and settlement, and possibly clear the Arctic Ocean for shipping. All good things.

    This is, of course, wrong – as a little bit of study would show you.

    But why should we expect anything else from someone so stupid that he dismisses all the science because it’s cold outside his window one winter’s day?

  15. But you kooks can’t just stop at that. No, you have to threaten us with a secular Apocalypse.

    Once again, derp, you seem to be misinterpreting the facts.

    I’m not threatening you with anything. Climate change exists, and it is irrelevant whether you believe it or not. It will affect our lives, and that’s a fact. The exact level of those effects and how we address them is an important conversation – but it is one that can only be engaged in by people capable of facing reality.

    Not denialist twerps like you.

  16. I have no need or duty to address the second.

    Sure. If you’re a weasel.

    Face it. You don’t HAVE any solutions, or you would be addressing them. I mean, I’ve only asked twice now, and twice you’ve ducked the question. In short, to use your own cancer analogy, you’ve basically saying csncer exists, but you know of no cures, so just make out your last will and testament.

    Why can’t you just face reality? Admit that Al Gore is full of shit, and that scare mongering doesn’t work. Admit that, if Global Warming exists at all, it is at worst a minor problem and more likely a benefit. That would be realistic. That, people might actually believe.

    The problem is, you can’t even define what Global Warming IS. That’s why I keep bringing up Al Gore. He has become, pretty much by default, your leading spokesman on the issue. Note: He has no science background AT ALL, yet his words of doom are taken as scripture by you loons! If he is wrong, then have the balls to say so! Then, maybe, we could have a credible conversation.

  17. The world has man-made global climate change.

    No. It has, at most, very minor climate change, the causes of which are unkown.

    The difference between you and me is that I understand science and you do not. To you, it is a kind of religion. You don’t understand the scientific method, most likely because your academic background is in something other than science, liberal arts of some sort, most likely.

    The advantage of having a scientific background is you can recognize scientific bullshit when you see it. And Al Gore’s Catastrophic Global Warming is pure bullshit. Oh, I suppose it might happen. And we might be hit by a five mile wide meteor tomorrow, too.

    But I wouldn’t bet much money on either happening.

  18. Oh, and BTW, from your link, there’s this:

    “It follows the lives of six people [...] caught up in the politics of climate breakdown. Starring Pete Postlethwaite, it is a captivating and constantly surprising film: the first successful dramatisation of climate change to reach the big screen.” – The Guardian

    Has this moron ever seen the above mentioned Waterworld? The setup is that all the world’s icecaps have melted and now the planet is one big ocean. About as credible as a Bugs Bunny cartoon, but to its credit, a pretty entertaining movie.

    Then there was The Day After Tomorrow, an Al Gore wet dream complete with a Dick Cheney-esque villain.

    I mean, it’s pretty bad when a purely amateur film reviewer such as myself knows more about this stuff than some so-called professional working at a newspaper!

  19. Eric wrote:

    Well, thermometers 100 years ago were a lot less accurate than they are today.

    I’d point out the problems with inter-operator, or inter-rater, reliability at this point.

    Different raters can disagree about measurement results from the same object by e.g. variations in the procedures of carrying out the experiment, interpreting the results and, subsequently, presenting them. All these stages may be affected by experimenter’s bias, that is, a tendency to deviate towards what is expected by the rater. When interpreting and presenting the results, there may be inter-rater variations in digit preference, that is, preferences differ whether to round off a value to a lower one or a higher one.

    While the Phoenician wouldn’t be aware of this, there is a marked tendency for International Falls, Minnesota, to report the coldest temperature in the 48 contiguous states during the winter.

    Icebox of the Nation

    International Falls has long promoted itself as the “Icebox of the Nation”; however, the trademark for the slogan has been challenged on several occasions by the small town of Fraser, Colorado. Officials from Fraser claimed usage since 1956, International Falls since 1948. The two towns came to an agreement in 1986, when International Falls paid Fraser $2,000 to relinquish its “official” claim. However, in 1996, International Falls inadvertently failed to renew its federal trademark, although it had kept its state trademark up to date. Fraser then filed to gain the federal trademark.[10] International Falls submitted photographic proof that its 1955 Pee Wee hockey team traveled to Boston, Massachusetts with the slogan.[11] After several years of legal battles, the United States Patent and Trademark Office officially registered the slogan with International Falls on January 29, 2008, Registration Number 3375139.[12] Only a few days after announcing its success in the trademark battle, International Falls had a daily record low temperature of −40°F (−40°C), beating a previous record of −37°F (−38.3°C) in 1967.

    Besides Fraser, there are still many towns that are smaller and annually overall colder than International Falls, many of these being mountain communities in the Rockies, as well as several in northern Minnesota. International Falls is still called the “Icebox of the Nation” after winning the claim against Fraser in court.[14] One thing that does help or hinder International Falls is that Fraser is located within the Rocky Mountains, which would help to depress low temperatures while International Falls is located on relatively flat land, which takes longer to cool on warm summer nights. It should also be noted that while sub−freezing temperatures are very common at high elevation, valley sites in the Rockies during the winter, maximum temperatures that remain sub−freezing are quite rare, while at International Falls and much of the upper (Northern) Midwest they are of relatively frequent occurrence. This is reflected by the average monthly temperatures during the winter months.

    International Falls¹ has a cultural bias which would encourage reporters to shave a degree or two, or perhaps just have a downward bias in rounding when reporting temperatures. An observer need not have a known bias or any particular reason to bias his observations in any particular way, but observer bias is a known phenomenon. One has to wonder about the accuracy of observations from personnel with widely different ranges of training and a broad range of cultural differences.
    _________________________
    ¹ – I once worked with a woman from International Falls, and we teased her and her magnificent, surgically altered bosom as being from Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, the famed hometown of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

  20. Eric wrote:

    Face it. You don’t HAVE any solutions, or you would be addressing them. I mean, I’ve only asked twice now, and twice you’ve ducked the question. In short, to use your own cancer analogy, you’ve basically saying csncer exists, but you know of no cures, so just make out your last will and testament.

    Alas! The warmists certainly do have solutions, which all seem to involve impoverishing the capitalist nations.

    Now, if they were serious, they could present meaningful changes which could be accomplished through the normal course of repair and replacement. Coal-burning power plants have a limited lifespan, and the ones in service today will eventually have to be replaced. They could support legislation which required replacement power plants to be something which emits far less, or no, CO2, without attempting to add huge carbon emission fees to current power generation. Then they’d be looked at as trying to deal with the problem — if it exists and can be impacted by human behavior — without being extremists and without attempting to destroy the capitalist economy. They’d need to consider more nuclear power plants seriously, as opposed to their near-universal abhorrence, because nuclear is the only current technology, or technology which can be projected in the foreseeable future, as having the capacity to replace existing fossil fueled plants on an industrial scale. Solar and wind and geothermal power generation are all feasible, but we have no current or readily foreseeable technology which would enable such power sources to generate anything close to the amount of electricity needed. Hydroelectric is solid, reliable and proven technology, but only works where there is sufficient running water to make the plant operable.

  21. Now, if they were serious, they could present meaningful changes which could be accomplished through the normal course of repair and replacement.

    This is where I do the homework that Pho is either too lazy, too stupid, or too dishonest to do himself.

    First off, I presented him with the premise that Al Gore’s catastrophic predictions were, in fact, accurate. Meaning nothing short of a drastic reduction in fossil fuel use would suffice to stave off global disaster.

    What would then be required would be something on the order of the following: Within a ten year span, all the industrialized nations of the would would have to do do this:

    1. Replace all fossil fuel electrical plants with nuclear plants.
    2. Replace all gas and diesel cars (including hybrids) with plug in electric vehicles, powered by the aforemention nuclear plants.
    3. All long haul freight would have to be by electric driven trains, long haul trucks would be phased out.
    4. Long distance land travel would be by electric driven passenger trains.
    5. Air travel would be phased out, traveling across oceans would be by ship only, powered by nuclear or sail. Cruise ships would also have to convert to nuclear power.

    That would probably eliminate 90% of your carbon emissions. And it could be done without destroying the free market economy and with the minimum amount of personal inconvenience. People could still have homes with heat and air conditioning, vehicles (albeit short range, and suitable for city driving only), TV’s, computers, and most of today’s modern conveniences.

    But this would depend on two things:

    1. The Global Warming people are telling us the truth [snort, eye roll}

    And,

    2. The environmental freaks, namely, the people most beholden to the Global Warming point of view, would be willing to embrace things they have traditionally hated, namely, nuclear power and the whole idea of economic progress. Would they be willing to cash in their pet ideology in order to embrace a solution to their problem that actually works?

    You will note that I have provided a practical solution to the Global Warming “Problem”, in noted contrast to Pho and his ideological ilk. Indeed, if one were cynical (and not very cynical at that) one might conclude that they don’t WANT any solutions, practical or otherwise. I mean, shit, the enviros can’t even seem to agree if windmills are good because it’s “Green energy” or bad because they chop up endangered birds. Ditto for damming up rivers.

    No, they don’t want to fix the problem. For one, if we fixed the problem, they’d have to go away. No, so much better for them for the problem NOT to be fixed. So much better if they can just yell and scream and scare the pants, pantyhose, and Pampers off every man, woman, and child on the planet. They’d like nothing better than for the Global Warming scare to go on, well, forever. Scaremongering makes for good politics, and what better way to get power and influence than by presenting us with, as HL Mencken so aptly observed, an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary?

  22. Eric, they aren’t out to fix the problem but rather to destroy capitalism. To them, that is the problem not man made global warming.

    besides, liberals don’t fix problems, they fix blame.

  23. While the Phoenician wouldn’t be aware of this, there is a marked tendency for International Falls, Minnesota, to report the coldest temperature in the 48 contiguous states during the winter.

    In truth, the coldest part of Minnesota is not International Falls, but rather two small towns south and east of there called Embarrass and Tower. On any given day in winter, one or both of them will probably have the day’s lowest temperature. Indeed, the all time state record low temperature of -60F (that’s temp, not wind chill) was set there back in the Great Freeze of 1996, breaking the old record of -59F.

  24. Hydroelectric is solid, reliable and proven technology, but only works where there is sufficient running water to make the plant operable.

    You’d think hydro-electric would be the perfect power source for the enviros and Global Warming nuts (basically the same people). It has no emissions, burns no fuel, and unlike nuclear, there isn’t even that pesky radioactive waste to worry about.

    But no, they don’t like that, either. It keeps the poor little fishies from swimming upstream to breed and it turns “Scenic” rivers into ugly old lakes, lakes festooned with stuff that enviros hate, like bass boats and Jet Skis.

    No, the Global Warming kooks/environmental extremists don’t like ANY form of energy, no matter how clean. Hoagie is right. They’re not really FOR anuything at all, much less an actual, practical solution to the so-called Global Warming “Crisis”, they just want to stand in the way of prosperity, economic growth, indeed, progress of ANY sort.

    But, all that aside, hydro-electric power DOES have some problems. They’re not pollution problems or technological problems, but rather geographic problems. There are only so many rivers in the world that are suitable for serious power generation, and we’ve dammned many of them already. To be effective, a river has to both have a high flow rate (cubic feet per second) and a high vertical drop. The Mississippi and the Amazon are broad, but flat, so they won’t do. What you need is something like the Colorado River or the Columbia River, and we’ve dammed those. There just isn’t that much more hydro-electric potential in America, so we’re sorta screwed on that front. And that’s assuming the enviros don’t make us bust up those dams and put things back to their “natural” state.

    No, the only real solution that would work in the foreseeable future is nuclear. And if the enviros don’t like THAT, we can shove a few uranium fuel rods up their asses till they glow!

  25. What’s your scientific background, dumbass? Ooops, so sorry, you don’t have one. Doesn’t take much science to stack books for a living. Try doing REAL science. Try designing an airplane. Try flying one. Navigating one. All take scientific skills, none of which you have. All you can do is repeat what others have told you. Al Gore (who knows nothing about science) says the Earth is doomed, and like a dumb little sheep, you just nod along. Shit, you can’t even DEFINE Global Warming, let alone come up with a solution to fix it, which I already gave.

    Here’s some friendly advice. Stick to what you know, which ain’t much. If you want to believe in the voodoo which is Al Gore’s “Global Warming”, be my guest. It may just fly with your fellow liberal arts grads, but don’t try to fool someone who actually studied real science.

  26. What’s your scientific background, dumbass?

    Eric, you dickhead – TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR OWN POST. You looked out your window one winter’s day, saw it was cold, and concluded that thousands of climate scientists working with over a century of data were wrong.

    You’re a fucking deluded loon, Eric.

  27. Like I said, you have no scientific background. You can’t tell real science from junk science. You can’t even define what Global Warming IS, let alone come up with a solution to the problem. Which I quite conveniently did for you, since you lack the brains to do it yourself.

  28. Eric says:
    Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 02:46

    What’s your scientific background, dumbass? Ooops, so sorry, you don’t have one. Doesn’t take much science to stack books for a living. Try doing REAL science. Try designing an airplane. Try flying one. Navigating one. All take scientific skills, none of which you have. All you can do is repeat what others have told you. Al Gore (who knows nothing about science) says the Earth is doomed, and like a dumb little sheep, you just nod along. Shit, you can’t even DEFINE Global Warming, let alone come up with a solution to fix it, which I already gave.

    Here’s some friendly advice. Stick to what you know, which ain’t much. If you want to believe in the voodoo which is Al Gore’s “Global Warming”, be my guest. It may just fly with your fellow liberal arts grads, but don’t try to fool someone who actually studied real science.”

    LOL. An American liberal arts grad with a serious degree would at least know something about … well, something. The New Zealand Neurotic exhibits no knowledge of any field of liberal arts whatsoever. Every time he makes a declarative statement about some matter of historical or philosophical fact he gets it wrong. He’s just some clown with what amounts to a general studies certificate from a BF Oceania college, with probably a “library science” concentration. Hell, Minnesota has more people and a more productive economy than New Zealand.

    “The economy of Minnesota produced US$243 billion of gross domestic product in 2005″

    Wiki

    “The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in New Zealand was worth 142.48 billion US dollars in 2010. The GDP value of New Zealand represents 0.23 percent of the world economy.

    ” Trading Economics Dot Com.

  29. Speaking of the Phoenician’s proven ignorance, demonstrated reasoning incompetence, and lack of intellectual and/or academic credentials … We again note that his entire purpose here is merely to cause as much disruption and annoyance as Dana allows.

    But because Phoenician is too intellectually feeble to construct a convincing argument, he has to rely on others who are supposed to be authoritative third parties.

    Comically, these so-called “authorities” regularly include everything from the overtly left-wing The Guardian newspaper, to blogs maintained by various nonentities and interest groups; some of whom make a practice of citing themselves by means of nested self-referring links, as if they were referring to additional authorities. (Recall his back-firing fiasco on CSPT when he indignantly demanded we read past the unconvincing primary linked material to a further link … a link which merely represented the same discredited ‘authority’ quoting himself.)

    Which just goes to show that even as a researcher, Phoenician is incompetent.

  30. DNW, Eric, you guys are all wrong. Pho’s an expert on everything from economics to science, from theology to history and medicine. Just ask him. That’s why he’s so rich and famous and that’s why the mere idea of Eric writing a book just boils his blood.

  31. Eric says:
    Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 03:25

    Like I said, you have no scientific background. You can’t tell real science from junk science. You can’t even define what Global Warming IS, let alone come up with a solution to the problem. Which I quite conveniently did for you, since you lack the brains to do it yourself.

    So in Phoenician, we have a no-talent dweeb troll with no credible science background spewing links as if they substituted for arguments; while The Local Scientist, Perry, cannot even bring himself to say what it is that constitutes the target and the subject matter of his “scientific method”, lest he inadvertently admit the objective reality of a world outside that “subjective-absolute” whatever it is, which is supposed to be going on inside his head.

    And this comedy duo of brain dead, admittedly soulless, swarm-shits, have the transgressive effrontery to claim the status of moral peers … to the extent that they demand (one in practice the other in principle) we accede to a suicidal no-limits collectivism? LOL

    Oh golly … Dana what are you thinking?

  32. Hoagie says:
    Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 10:58

    DNW, Eric, you guys are all wrong. Pho’s an expert on everything from economics to science, from theology to history and medicine.

    Well in all fairness to Phoenician in a time of Romans, he never claimed to be an expert in absolutely everything, just to know better, and how to sort fact from fiction and to judge the facts. But he was shown to be spectacularly and comically wrong about even that.

    Just ask him.

    We didn’t have to. He volunteered, and then landed splat on his face.

    That’s why he’s so rich and famous and that’s why the mere idea of Eric writing a book just boils his blood.”

    That and the fact that Pho’s egregious and repeated blunders indicate he has none of the substantive credentials he poses as having. Eric is just highlighting it once again in a way that is obviously particularly painful for the Phoenician.

    Ultimately though, I think it’s as much the idea that Eric refuses to be bowed into a collectivist submission attitude by accepting the modern liberal’s narrative concerning the tragic nature of human existence – wherein security and meaning and pleasure can only be justly distributed by means of an enforced mutual grooming community, and lockstep maneuvers performed within an in-principle totalizing polity managed by officially anointed experts.

    We can then all get our government apportioned checks, and fade into nothingness together, while defiantly singing songs of solidarity and appreciation.

    Of course it’s all meaningless anyway, ultimately, but at least such a totalizing system assures us that by linking arms some men won’t have to become trolls in order to get noticed.

    Oh wait. Phoenician in a time of Romans proves just the opposite doesn’t he.

  33. DNW said: “Ultimately though, I think it’s as much the idea that Eric refuses to be bowed into a collectivist submission attitude by accepting the modern liberal’s narrative concerning the tragic nature of human existence…”

    But that’s the thing, isn’t it? If they like “the collective”, who’s stopping them? Why must these types demand WE finance their beliefs? Let’em move together and have their collective (I heard it was tried before to no avail). Let them tax and spend each other into oblivion. I just don’t understand why WE must be forced to subsidize their folly. Why must we all be Borgs?

  34. Socialism is an all-or-nothing gambit. If there is any part of anything that isn’t controlled by Socialism, then Socialism itself fails spectacularly in the face of that which is not Socialist.

    And even then, even when Socialism does get its “all”, it fails spectacularly because it is a system that is doomed to fail from the start. Look at North Korea. Look at China, which only started to move forward economically when it introduced Free Market Capitalism into its system. Look at East Germany. Look at the collapse of Spain, Greece, France. Socialism is doomed to failure and the people under Socialist rule are doomed to impoverishment, starvation, death.

  35. Hoagie says:
    Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 12:06

    DNW said: “Ultimately though, I think it’s as much the idea that Eric refuses to be bowed into a collectivist submission attitude by accepting the modern liberal’s narrative concerning the tragic nature of human existence…”

    But that’s the thing, isn’t it? If they like “the collective”, who’s stopping them? Why must these types demand WE finance their beliefs? Let’em move together and have their collective (I heard it was tried before to no avail). Let them tax and spend each other into oblivion. I just don’t understand why WE must be forced to subsidize their folly. Why must we all be Borgs?”

    Yeah that’s the crux of the matter isn’t it.

    In practical terms it’s because what they want is not sustainable unless they can dragoon everyone and everything into their suffocating hothouse of redistributive managerial-ism.

    Any perceived escape from their fetid breath and smarmy clutches will be seized upon by the motivated, and the residuum left behind will spiral downward more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

    The collectivists after all had half the world under their unchallenged and totalizing domination, and they could not make their systematic redistribution of life effort and substance pay.

    Of course, they now realize that even a total domination of the world isn’t quite enough. Yes, with total political domination they will be able to keep the leakage down and draw on the lives of a greater number of unwilling subjects than otherwise would longer be the case. But in the long term, or as long as human nature is as it substantially is now, a dissatisfied sub-population from which most of the energy and drive is sucked will eventually engage in various kinds of “subversive” activities, such as slow-downs or the creation of informal exclusivist interest and support groups, etc.

    That kind of activity will of course, if not defeat the egalitarian premise of the society, at least vitiate it.

    So, from the leftist perspective, the problem going forward is not political as much as anthropological. Even the sexes pose a problem for them.

    Where they once believed that a new socialist or cooperative man could be generated out of political coercion, indoctrination, conditioning, and reproductive herd culling – which they did to the tune of millions murdered – they now after decades of experience know otherwise, even though some human populations are more easily manipulated than others.

    So the upshot is that they are forced by their own wants toward a system that will allow them to redefine and shape what the species is.

    In the name of what exactly, given their foundational nihilism, I am hard pressed to say … in any way that doesn’t sound almost mythical.

    But frankly, the journey toward a kind of Borg-like collective is the only move left for the modern liberal. They must reshape the herd in such a way that all men will instinctively act like herd animals “naturally”.

    Then, once the hive is established with a properly designed population, the average leftist’s issues with anxiety, and alienation, envy and neurotic compulsions, will fade away.

    They will have escaped from the curse of an individual responsibility which their particular human progenitors were not capable of effectively realizing anyway.

    And they will have “solved” the problem of those existential anxieties generated by the individual’s confrontation with his individuality. Snug and smug, in the center of the buzzing hive, aware but not self-conscious, warmly connected, with no need of questions and answers much less religion or metaphysics, they will float like adult babies drifting on a sea of comforting Vaseline; expressing urges originating they know not where, and having them instantly satisfied for they know not why … on and on … on and on … until the stars, and they, wink out, forever ….. Or they mature into Devils first. LOL

  36. Like I said, you have no scientific background.

    Eric, you moron – you just wrote a piece on how thousands of climate scientists are wrong because you looked out your window and it was cold in winter.

    You’re a fucking deluded loon. Pure and simple.

  37. Eric says to Phoenician in a time of Romans, neurotic New Zealand librarian and infamous Internet troll:

    “Like I said, you have no scientific background. You can’t tell real science from junk science. You can’t even define what Global Warming IS, let alone come up with a solution to the problem. Which I quite conveniently did for you, since you lack the brains to do it yourself.”

    In return, Phoenician in a time or Romans sputters …

    ” Eric, you …– you just … because you … your window and …

    You’re a …”

    The fall out? At the end of the day, Phoenician in a time of Romans, still has no scientific background, and, no argument.

  38. You didn’t answer the question, pinhead. I asked what is your scientific background.

    Judging by the non-response, it’s fair to say you don’t have one. Just like your hero, Al Gore.

    You can’t define Global Warming. You can’t come up with a solution for it. And yet we’re expected to take your opinions on the subject seriously? Why, exactly?

  39. John Hitchcock says:
    Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 12:25

    Socialism is an all-or-nothing gambit. If there is any part of anything that isn’t controlled by Socialism, then Socialism itself fails spectacularly in the face of that which is not Socialist.

    And even then, even when Socialism does get its “all”, it fails spectacularly because it is a system that is doomed to fail from the start. Look at North Korea. Look at China, which only started to move forward economically when it introduced Free Market Capitalism into its system. Look at East Germany. Look at the collapse of Spain, Greece, France. Socialism is doomed to failure and the people under Socialist rule are doomed to impoverishment, starvation, death.”

    Looks like I repeated a good deal of the substance of John’s comment.

    But of course we have all been addressing these matters – the one Hoagie himself only rhetorically questioned – for a long while.

    As the socialist eventually admitted to me after being challenged on the exact implementation of his supposed reassurance of a minor “hoe your own row” opt-out to an otherwise strident and all encompassing economic collectivism, “Socialism is an all society proposition”.

    Yeah, if you give in to us collectivists, you can still keep some of your land, and some of your guns, and some of your money, and some of your life efforts … but, not really.

  40. Eric, you moron – you just wrote a piece on how thousands of climate scientists are wrong because you looked out your window and it was cold in winter.

    It’s called an anecdote, you jackass. It’s the same thing as when a photographer takes a picture of a polar bear on a (supposedly) shrinking ice floe and says “Look, proof of Global Warming!”

    I’m simply mimicking the tactics that your side uses ALL THE TIME! Every time the weather does something unusual, it’s “Proof” of Global Warming. Too much rain? Proof of Global Warming. Not enough rain? Proof of Global Warming. Shit, when your left wing Hollywood pals made the aforementioned movie The Day After Tomorrow, it was proof of Global Warming that half the country turned into an ice age. Well, proof of Climate Change. Or something.

  41. It’s funny, but when I posted a message that began by taking Al Gore’s assumtions as valid, and then came up with a fairly detailed plan to fix them, the response from our resident Global Warming “Expert”? Silence.

    I guess maybe the science just went right over his head. Like I said, he certainly can’t come up with any solutions. Shit, he can’t even define the problem itself, and if you can’t define the problem, it’s hard to define a solution.

    No, the Global Warming kooks don’t want any well defined solutions. No, they just want the “Problem” to stick around, probably, forever. The more they can scare people, the more political power they can achieve.

    Which is really what this is all about in the first place.

  42. You didn’t answer the question, pinhead. I asked what is your scientific background.

    Eric, I didn’t have to – I have just demonstrated that YOU have no credibility to be talking about science whatsoever.

    I’m simply mimicking the tactics that your side uses ALL THE TIME!

    Uh-huh.

    Moron.

  43. You didn’t answer the question, pinhead. I asked what is your scientific background.

    Eric, I didn’t have to

    Of course not. Because you’re a chickshit weasel who won’t answer a simple, direct question because the answer would likely be highly embarrassing.

    Anyway, we don’t need a direct answer. Your evasions speak for themselves. The answer is you have no scientific background AT ALL.

    Got it.

  44. Of course not.

    Yes, that’s right – because you’ve just demonstrated yourself to be a complete ignoramus when it comes to science.

  45. because you’ve just demonstrated yourself to be a complete ignoramus when it comes to science.

    Which is, of course, why I provided a detailed scientific and technological solution to this so-called Global Warming “problem”. Something you were singularly unable to do.

    That’s because you understand neither the problem nor the solution. Al Gore says the sky is falling, and you open an umbrella.

  46. Which is, of course, why I provided a detailed scientific and technological solution to this so-called Global Warming “problem”

    That would be this?

    “No, the only real solution that would work in the foreseeable future is nuclear. And if the enviros don’t like THAT, we can shove a few uranium fuel rods up their asses till they glow!”

    Nope.

    You’re a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect – you don’t even know enough to know how stupid you are.

Comments are closed.