Previous post
Next post
I guess Gaia is not doing what the Goracle is telling her to do. Doesn’t she know that it’s supposed to be getting catastrophically hotter right now?! Why is it FREEZING!?!?
Just venturing a guess as to what would be going through the Goracle’s head when he found out his global warming lecture might be frozen out:
Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the ‘urgent need’ to combat global warming.
But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.
A ‘Winter Storm Watch’ has been posted for the nation’s capitol and there is a potential for significant snow… sleet… or ice accumulations.
“I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside,” a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. “And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel.”
A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.
Global warming advocates have suggested this year’s wild winter spells are proof of climate change.
See? Even when it’s freezing, it’s still proof of global warming! No matter what the weather does, it means that global warming is REAL, REAL, REAL! Temperatures burning up? Global warming. Temperatures freezing? Global warming. Too much rain? Global warming. Not enough rain? Global warming. Lots of hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. Disappearing polar ice? Global warming. Too much polar ice? Global warming!
See? We must listen to the Goracle, for he truly understands Gaia, and is totally not in it to swindle people out of every penny he can. Who cares if nothing he has said has come to be true? It’s Al Gore! He invented the internet! It must be true, no matter what the weather actually does.
Stephen J. says: I sometimes think the AGW advocates would be better advised to call their theory “Anthropogenic Climate Destabilization Catastrophism”. Most of the relatively sane claims argue that it’s the climate extremes — both hot and cold — which will do the damage, and that the current climate shift has been artificially aggravated by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to produce increasing instability and unpredictability. Hence, “climate destabilization.”
The only problem is that the acronym will make people head-bang and throw devil’s horns.
susan says: You forget. It’s not “global warming”, it is “climate change”. It covers all bases,
baz says: I could explain that global warming is a misnomer, and when you hear the term “global warming,” it’s usually a tip-off that the person doesn’t really understand it.
I could explain that over the weekend it snowed in Dubai. Do you know how often it snows in Dubai? They don’t have a native word for “snow” in Dubai. That’s how often.
I could explain how reading a few articles and watching Faux News does not qualify you in the least to comment on scientists’ entire lifetimes of work, and that it’s kind of insulting and crass to question their expertise with so little of your own.
But I know you wouldn’t listen.
So I won’t.
Stephen J. says: “I could explain how reading a few articles and watching Faux News does not qualify you in the least to comment on scientists’ entire lifetimes of work, and that it’s kind of insulting and crass to question their expertise with so little of your own.”
It doesn’t take scientific expertise to evaluate inconsistency in argument or to spot prejudicial evidence selection.
AGW advocates harp endlessly about how funding from big business clearly proves a right-wing agenda in AGW skeptics, while claiming the vastly greater funding from academia and government bodies has nothing to do with a left-wing agenda in the policies they advocate, or even acknowledging that the sheer ease of obtaining funding if you claim an AGW-slanted research project might be distorting the objectivity of the process.
AGW advocates denounce any skeptical scientist whose field of expertise is not precisely what *they* define as “climatology”, while blithely granting legitimacy to *any* scientist who happens to agree with them regardless of their actual field of study.
AGW advocates will take a ten-year streak of cooling and ignore it as a “nonrepresentative counter-blip”, but will hold up random single events like Katrina as irrefutable proof of AGW.
The serious scientists who are making realistic claims about the reality of climate shift (because the climate *is* shifting) are not the people who are being challenged. It’s the advocates who are taking their cautions about potential difficulties decades in the future and turning them into catastrophe-in-four-years proclamations to advance a social agenda that need to be challenged.
baz says: Stephen J.: “AGW advocates will take a ten-year streak of cooling and ignore it as a “nonrepresentative counter-blip”, but will hold up random single events like Katrina as irrefutable proof of AGW.”
Really? Like who? Who says this? Because I read read science mags from time to time, and haven’t seen anyone make such an argument.
What I have read is that cooling in some places (e.g., Dubai) is a natural consequence of an even greater proportion of warming in the Arctic circle due to the law of conservation of energy and thermodynamic patterns in the atmosphere.
And what social agenda are you talking about? The only agenda I know of among academics is “publish or perish.”
Fangbeer says: “I could explain that global warming is a misnomer, and when you hear the term “global warming,” it’s usually a tip-off that the person doesn’t really understand it.”
You best explain it to Al Gore then.
Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. -AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. -AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences. -AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005
An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It – Al Gore 2006 Rodale Books.
There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere. – Al Gore
For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they’re right, but we’re exceeding those boundaries now. – Al Gore
Mike says: Nice tits. I didn’t think you would have a brain too. I was right.
7 Comments