Feb 26 2008
Global Cooling? Oh for Chrissakes.
Okay, can we make up our minds on what we’re going to be killed by? Is it cooling or warming?
No wonder the environmentalists stopped using “global warming” and started with the more generic “climate change.”
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Face it, the most we can do is take care of the planet and hope for the best. We don’t know what’s going on, we don’t understand it, and we probably never will. One thing’s for sure, though. Seeing as man hasn’t done much to change its ways, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that our impact isn’t quite as large as we were lead to initially believe.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I know in the past you’ve said you “admittedly do” drink the “global warming Kool-Aid”; does this mean you’re abandoning that position once and for all and embracing a non-agenda driven approach to environmentalism?
If so, great! I’ve long been against the anthropocentric view of climate change, and I’m glad to have you aboard.
If not, how then does your view change? Is humanity somehow causing change in the direction of both extremes?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Yeah, because you’d have to be out of your mind to think that humans could fuck up the planet…
Get a life, Chris.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You’ve completely disarmed me with your totally rational response.
I yield, Patrick. I yield.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I do drink the Kool-Aid in that I believe something is happening and I’ve been very clear to make the distinction in just about every mention I’ve made of global warming and environmentalism, and I still think humans can do more and should do more to make a lower environmental footprint on the planet.
Do I think humans are causing it? I don’t know. I’m not a scientist. Do I think we should just pollute the air and shit in the ocean because we aren’t? 100% not. Somewhere in the middle is probably where I am; I don’t know the effects of humans on the climate, and at the same time I think we can and should do a better job of protecting the planet.
I will say this much. The former “Global Warming” crowd, which is now the “Climate Change” crowd is going to have a lot of ’splaining to do if we do plunge into an ice age or something, but then again they’ll probably just say it’s the same thing and we’re all too dumb to understand.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
BTW: Bonus points for use of the word anthropocentric.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Great attempt at sarcasm. How many times did you re-write that post before you fellated yourself?
You see, Chris, I’m logical, so I tend to agree with a VAST majority of the world’s scientists when they explain that humans are the major contributing factor to Global Warming. Then, of course, there’s the scientific documentation they’ve provided to support their claims.
Are the VAST majority of the world’s scientists ‘agenda-driven’ conspirators? Is this notion of human caused climate change just another fringe-environmentalist scheme?
And what the hell is this brand of agenda-driven environmentalism, you speak of? Who are its followers?
Could their schemes be associated with the restriction of lead based paint during the ’70’s?
What about the reduction of Nitrus Oxide emissions during the ’80’s and ’90’s? (If you believe the nut-job tree-huggers, this is what causes Acid Rain)
What about the reduction of ozone depleting chemicals during the ’80’s and ’90’s?
I’m on the look-out, Chris -just tell me who not to trust…
February 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Patrick,
Your logic becomes lost on most people when you introduce your argument with a charge that I gave myself a blow job.
Elevate yourself to a cordial level of discourse, and we can talk.
Also, note I didn’t go on about conspiracies, fringe-environmentalist schemes, or refute anything of the environmentalist movement itself. These are suggestions you’ve introduced to the conversation.
I am a proponent of responsible care of the earth; I just choose not to elevate my species to a total mastery of a planet and of a concept none of us understand.
By the way, I also have scientific proof that earth’s temperature rises in concurrence with the rise in temperature of the sun. Crazy, I know!
Just the same; I’m willing to go tit-for-tat with you, but when you begin your challenge by saying I fellate myself then continued by taking liberty to insert two-word quotes of mine into your own diatribe, I find that I really don’t have much to say.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I just find it humorous that the far left’s “solutions” for global warming are, coincidentally, right in line with their agenda BEFORE the GW or GC scares.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Chris,
How great it is of you to speak for most people…
I explained my position. Then, I questioned your implication that those who believe in a human cause of Global Warming are ‘agenda-driven.’
Coincidentally, you have yet to explain this agenda…
And, yes, my comments were somewhat disrespectful, but I couldn’t care less. It was never my intention to engage in a polite discussion with you. While it may offend your apparent sensitivity, it is possible to conjunctively trade insults and information. When you threaten to withdraw your input from the conversation because of my objectionable mode of argumentation, you don’t sound intelligent, you sound like a bitch.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Patrick,
Classy…
Who am I claiming to speak for, first off. In the spirit of disrespect: you illiterate dunce! I never said I was speaking for anyone.
How am I wrong in saying that environmentalists driven more by the idea of global warming and less for the pure cause of being good caretakers of our home are agenda-driven? They’re not in it to be good caretakers, they’re in it for their agenda.
And please, please don’t mistake my avoidance of joining you in conversation because of your mode an admission of being offended. I just don’t want to reduce myself to your level to engage in debate. Rather than throwing insults at me, make me look foolish with your strong argument. Get everyone laughing at me because you skewered me with your irrefutable facts.
You can’t, though; so on with the blow job jokes!
February 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Oh, oh. Wait.
Patrick, I do honestly and sincerely apologize. I *did* use the term “most people” in my first response to you re: blow jobs.
You’re not an illiterate dunce; I take that back.
Shame I lost on peripheral merits, but you got this one…
February 26th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
And the academy award goes to: …..
Global cooling!
I would like to thank my star, Sol, for controlling Earth’s climate so well these past few billion years. Now it’s time to button up that overcoat and put on that hat and scarf. Because it’s cold outside, campers.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Chris,
So far, all you’ve managed to prove is that I’ve addressed you in a distasteful manner.
I’m still waiting for you to define this agenda…
An aside:
Stop misusing the semicolon; it’s obnoxious.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Patrick,
I’ve already defined.
Please tell me how I’ve misused the semicolon.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Chris,
You defined the agenda already? I must have missed it. Could you define it again?
Misuse of semicolons:
1. “Just the same; I’m willing to go tit-for-tat with you, but when you…”
2. “You can’t, though; so on with the blow job jokes!”
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_commacomp.html
February 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Patrick,
Nah, if you can go back to nitpick my grammar, you can certainly go back and read the rest of what I said.
My apologies for the misplaced semicolons; I’ll be certain to never, ever be so obnoxious again.
Now excuse me, I have to go back to blowing myself.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
No, Chris, I can’t go back and find your definition of the agenda.
Please, Chris, tell me again.
You know, it’s starting to seem as if you’re unable to define this agenda. Funny, how your argument immediately loses momentum when you stop attacking my method for argumentation…
I thought you wanted a mature and substantive debate. Was I wrong? I’m trying, Chris. I simply need you to define this agenda before we can move along any further.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Global Warming = The Agenda
And honestly, I’ve grown tired of this. I already let you have this one. You insist on bullying rather than debating. I’ll again concede.
You’re so much smarter than me, Patrick. I can never win. In fact, I’m so enamored by you, I’d rather be blowing you than myself!
Can I?
Please?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Wait a second here… can we go back to how Chris can fellate himself?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Global Warming is the agenda of environmentalists?
What the fuck does that mean?
They want to warm the globe? They want to study Global Warming?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Patrick,
So far you’ve gotten wrong everything I’ve said.
Really.
With that, my offer to fellate you is still on the table. Your intelligence is just so overwhelming.
Just tell me when and where, bud.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Wait, not to get in the middle of things, but I think what Chris is saying is that environmentalists had their agenda that we should be making less of an impact on the earth, blah blah, etc., and then conveniently Global Warming (or basically, our collective knowledge of it) came later. I don’t think that he’s saying they want to warm the globe.
Kind of like how we wanted Saddam dealt with… that was our agenda, so then we brought up WMDs, even if they didn’t exist, in order to justify following through with our agenda. And when I say “our”, I meant, George W. And not that I fault him for that agenda, only I wish he didn’t lie.
So in this case, Global Warming, becomes Global Cooling, and it does seem rather suspicious. Kinda like people are just saying things and they don’t know why they are saying them, but they know that if they say it enough, they’ll get their way.
Now it seems that there is an awful lot of fellating going on around here, and I’m not getting any. Can we discuss THAT for a while?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The Masked Rye,
Count yourself in, friend.
You’re in the same chapter as I am, but you’re not quite on the same page.
I’m saying that environmentalism in its purest sense — responsible care of earth, not destroying resources for destruction’s sake but for legitimately beneficial reasons, etc. — is an excellent thing.
However, environmentalists driven by the global warming agenda — you catch that, Patrick? — are really going about things all wrong.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Seriously, man, you’re beginning to sound like an idiot.
I’m only asking you to elaborate. Instead, you evade my questions and use ad-hominem attacks to, somehow, elevate your position on the matter.
Just tell me that you can’t define the agenda of environmentalists.
Vinny,
He may have used the term ‘anthropocentric,’ but he can’t hold his ground in an argument. Although he sounded bright and rational at the beginning of this discussion, I think it’s been revealed that he is, in fact, an idiot. As Norman Mailer used to say, “Once the philosopher, twice the pervert.”
February 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Patrick,
Which of your questions have I evaded?
And please do explain how I’m the pervert considering you so willing entered fellatio into the discussion.
And, Patrick, one last time, I was never speaking of “the agenda of environmentalists.” Read what I’m saying instead of picking out all the blow-job talk.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Chris,
“I know in the past you’ve said you “admittedly do” drink the “global warming Kool-Aid”; does this mean you’re abandoning that position once and for all and embracing a non-agenda driven approach to environmentalism?
If so, great!”
It sure sounds like you were talking about the agenda of environmentalists.
For the record, I wasn’t calling you a pervert. Mailer meant it to explain that one’ s integrity is left in tact after an initial failure, but that subsequent failures become indicative of one’s character -Kinda like you and your argument!
Congratulations, though, for getting so pissy about something I didn’t even say…
February 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Patrick,
This is my last reply directed at you.
Through all of this you’ve ignored all of my further explanations?
And for someone so wrapped up in grammar, your explanation of Mailer is riddled with errors. Quite obnoxious!
Finally, it’s funny you accuse me of “getting so pissy about something [you] didn’t even say.” This whole time you’ve been insisting I said something I didn’t.
Heh.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“And for someone so wrapped up in grammar, your explanation of Mailer is riddled with errors. Quite obnoxious!”
Care to elaborate? Of course not. You specialize in making charges that you can’t support.
“Finally, it’s funny you accuse me of “getting so pissy about something [you] didn’t even say.” This whole time you’ve been insisting I said something I didn’t.”
Funny, I’ve been discussing something you DID say. Does that which you allege you did not say, but alas, you did, need to be posted a third time?
Finally, you haven’t offered ‘further explanations.’ I’ve asked for you to provide them, but you’ve ignored me. Says a lot, really…
February 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Perversion abounds… and frankly, god bless it.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
So you’re saying that environmentalists aren’t attaining their goal of responsible care of earth, etc., etc. You’re saying that they are supposedly trying to be responsible, but they are managing to screw things up, or at least they are managing not to have the overall desired effect?
And wait, are you making a distinction between “environmentalists” and “global warming environmentalists”?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The Masked Rye,
To your first point: Yes, and no. I think that environmentalists get too wrapped up in the varying peripheral agendas — global warming for one, animal rights for another — that the overall goal, fostering a healthy earth, gets lost in the noise.
The ideology of environmentalism is more than sound; the agendas that get pushed in the name of environmentalism drive the chief goal off course.
To your second point: Yes. Environmentalism at its core is the desire to responsibly maintain earth and its resources. Global warming-driven environmentalism is the desire to somehow correct the earth’s rising average temperature by inhibiting humanity’s actions.
The former is responsibility driven; the latter is fear driven.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
So, you wanted us to infer all of that when you said environmentalism was agenda driven?
I think you needing to take a writing course, Chris.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Well, Patrick, you just need a bit of finesse… you’ve got to take the time… breathe deep…
Ok, so gold stars for each of you… one for anthropocentric and one for fellated. And bonus stars all around for everyone’s overall stubborness and tenacity. 33 posts, pretty much from two people, and frankly, it was gosh dern entertaining. Let’s do it again sometime, shall we?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Yeah, I did get a little heated -as I always do when people dogmatically support fallacious arguments…
February 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Oh, by the way, it’s interesting that an industry has been fashioned out of Global Warming skepticism. Gee, wonder why that could be…
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-lures-legislators-with-free-hotels-for-climate-skeptics-conference
February 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I get the same way, but I wasn’t invested in this one. It was more amusing to watch. There are plenty of subjects that will get me all riled up and I’ll explode in a veritable torrent of verbal abuse and chastisement. Hippies and peace and love… Conservative republicans and their need to control (or attempt to control) the morality of the world… arguing about the merits of Chuck Berry as the start of Rock ‘n’ Roll…
Global warming has become a blah argument for me. I don’t think there’s much we can do. If we can’t even stop people from littering, how can we get enough people to care about the environment? People’s attitude of self-importance in America has grown to the point where the average person can’t think of anything other than their own happiness and convenience. In general, people suck. You couldn’t get enough people to clap their hands and save Tinkerbell now-a-days. It just takes too much effort.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
…now now Patrick… you’re sounding a little heated again…
March 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am
This isn’t actually the first time taht global cooling was an issue… there was quite the scare that the earth would turn to ice back in the 70s… of course, that didn’t happen, so it’s been a little hard for me to now swallow the warming issue. So, now we’re back to cooling? My neck is starting to hurt from looking back and forth.
Vinny, I’m right there in the middle on this one, too. Hell yeah, we need to take care of things, but look at what we are… ALSO part of the earth and what is taking place on it. The earth and what happens on it has historically been cyclical. Do we impact it? Of course! Should we intervene… well, that’s a really long conversation. It’s like trying to put out forest fires caused by lightning. Not necessarily a good idea since it disrupts the nature life cycle of the forest. There has to be some balance and understanding.
But, I’m not a scientist either, so what the hell do I know?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:10 am
“It’s like trying to put out forest fires caused by lightning.”
Try another analogy, Jenn…