T'was bad month for Global Warminists

UNITED STATES - Climate Summary - April 2008

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

And,



But they won't be helping Al Gore's fundraisings.



.

Sam,

I wonder how many people need to starve or be financially ruined as a consequence of biofuels before Al Gore is seen as an enemy to the very people that he and his ilk fool the world into believing that he and his ilk are good for them.

Mike is Al Gore pushing for biofuels?

I think most cornbelt politicians are pushing that (from both parties).

But I did not know algore was.

I don't know Sherm. Does being named Biofuels "personality-of-the-year-finalist make you a supporter of biofuels?

If that doesn't clear it up, maybe his own words will.

"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be."

Vice-President Al Gore
Third Annual Farm Journal Conference, December 1, 1998
source

Seems to me that since Gore supplied the deciding vote at one point that actually saved ethanol, he not only supports it, he is personally responsible for the current problems that ethonal is posing to America and the world today.

Thanks Aaron. I did not know that.

I am not ardently opposed to the concept like you seem to be, but corn does not seem like the best source.

As I understand, Hemp might be better.

But I dont claim a lot of knowledge or expertise in this field.

I read the facts on corn based ethanol. Considering all the harm it does compared to the very little good, it was a very easy choice.

For me, if you're going to promote an alternate source of energy, wind would seem to make more sense to me then just about anything else. But wouldn't you know that the biggest opponents of wind are environmental nut bags crying about how devastating wind turbines are to bats and migrating birds and the 'not in my back yard' philosophy', they are too noisy; they are inefficient, making no more than a symbolic contribution to energy needs.

There’s a nut bag by the name of Dan Boone running around the western Maryland, southwestern PA, Davis, WV area doing everything he can to put a stop to wind turbines and his reasoning is that the huge turbines required to produce the energy needed will disrupt the view of Appalachia.

I’m not claiming to be an expert (I came across an old NY Times article about Boone) and I’ve still got some studying to do on the subject so I’m not saying wind is the answer but I’ve got to question if the far left can’t agree on what needs to be done in their own house, how on God’s green earth can we expect to take anything they say seriously.

Like it or not, this nation has serious energy needs right now that are only going to get worse and all I’m seeing from the left is stall tactics and delays in just about every proposal that comes down the pike.

At some point, we as a nation, are going to have to address our needs or we’re only going to become more dependent on foreign nations to meet our needs.

Aaron wrote:There’s a nut bag by the name of Dan Boone running around the western Maryland, southwestern PA, Davis, WV area doing everything he can to put a stop to wind turbines and his reasoning is that the huge turbines required to produce the energy needed will disrupt the view of Appalachia.

I’m not claiming to be an expert (I came across an old NY Times article about Boone) and I’ve still got some studying to do on the subject so I’m not saying wind is the answer but I’ve got to question if the far left can’t agree on what needs to be done in their own house, how on God’s green earth can we expect to take anything they say seriously.

Dan Boone is a "nut bag", for sure. Like me, most West Virginia environmentalists
cut their ties with Boone and his partners in wind energy disinformation several years ago. What would you have the "far left" and other environmentalists do with dissidents and purists like Boone? Execute then?

Just remember, that was your suggestion, not mine.

I wonder Aaron how it is that so many conservatives deny global warming in the face of volumnes of evidence. References you like. 1. community.worldofgood.com 2. www.fightglobalwarming.com 3. www.worldwildlife.org/climate 4. www.epa.gov/climate change 5. www.climatehotmap.org 6. www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org. 7. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html 8. www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/ 9 .www.nrdc.org/globlawarming That is just a few sources out of a possible 48,900,000. I'll be very interested to see you do as usual and explain all of the millions away with a few from a right-wing source.

I don't speak for consertatives Linda and definately not about GW. You'll have to ask them.

Good luck with that!!!

lindaredtail wrote:I wonder Aaron how it is that so many conservatives deny global warming in the face of volumnes of evidence. References you like. 1. community.worldofgood.com 2. www.fightglobalwarming.com 3. www.worldwildlife.org/climate 4. www.epa.gov/climate change 5. www.climatehotmap.org 6. www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org. 7. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html 8. www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/ 9 .www.nrdc.org/globlawarming That is just a few sources out of a possible 48,900,000. I'll be very interested to see you do as usual and explain all of the millions away with a few from a right-wing source.

Well now Linda Lou, I would be very, very, very INTERESTED in seeing your explanation as to why you support and agree with all that volume of "evidence" that you referenced there above.

Remember now, ......... why you support and agree .

Think you can do that?

.

I noticed that with the exception of NOAA (and VERY charitably the EPA), every group has a compelling interest in global warming being true. I wonder what Linda would think of my citing 9 different groups as authoritative on the subject of tax cuts, using analogous organizations/bureaucracies.

From the EPA website (and not one of those conservative sources)

"Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change,"

Now this is fascinating to me. Temperatures change--of that we can be certain. In fact, that's how the EPA opens its vigniette (talking about fluctuations in global climate such as ice ages and what not). Knowing this to be true, the scientists have a priori decided that the change that we know for a fact is coming, and would have even if people were not on this earth is instead proof of anthroprogenic global warming.

They are rigging the debate. They are making what sounds like a falsifiable prediciton to the hasty glance, but on further reflection, isn't falsifiable at all. There will be a change, and at times that change will involve "global warming," just as it has many, many times before.

I think they are making a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of argument. One year there are many hurricanes, including Katrina, and global warming is to blame; but no fear, if there is a lighter than usual hurricane season, it means nothing whatsoever. They have managed to frame global warming in such a way as it can explain everything, but doesn't have to explain anything.

I was at a gag-worthy exhibit at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in which there were all of these pictures of catastrophes attributed to global warming (including Katrina and Rita) with just a teeny little sentence (juxtaopsed with a giant picture of devastation) admitting that horrible hurricanes have occurred quite often in human history (even before SUVs and air conditioning!)

I'm the first to tell you that I don't know science very well (that I have a Master's of Science is very funny to me given that Political Science isn't!), but I gotta tell ya, my bulls#%t detector is beeping!!!!!!!!

While I'm on my sophomoric rant, let me ask the global warming alarmists a couple of questions.

1-Did humans cause the last ice age?
2-Could there be an ice age in the near (couple thousand years) future?
3-What impact would a mini-ice age or full blown ice age have on global poverty and hunger?

SamCogar and SheikBen I can tell that the two of you are global warming deniers which is your right. As I stated in my earlier post there are on Google alone 48,900,000 entries on global warming. Thousands of scientists and numerous agencies have concluded that global warming is real. Of course you want to believe that they are rigging the debate because it conflicts with you believe. It wouldn't matter how much evidence you saw your narrowmindedness would not allow you to see the truth. I do not argue the subject of global warming. I am on the side of this issue which is supported by the perponderance of the evidence and the opinion of the majority of science. My view is the accepted, mainstream view. Yours is the minority, out of the mainstream view. It is up to you to prove that the majority are wrong, not me to prove it. And you can't do that. I find it interesting however that SheikBen states " I noticed that with the exception of NOAA and (VERY charitably the EPA), every group has a compelling interest in global warming being true." No group has been more of a global warming denier than the American Petroleum Institute. They are operated by the oil industry. Science motivated by profit margins is dubious at best and utterly invalid at worst. As I stated it is not up to me to disprove the volumes of available research. That is up to you to do. I support the mainstream position which considering how many reliable scientists and organizations also do makes it likely that their conclusions are correct. I might start researching 48,900,000 entries if I were the two of you legitimately interested in the facts. (Which you are not)

SheikBen wrote:I noticed that with the exception of NOAA (and VERY charitably the EPA), every group has a compelling interest in global warming being true. I wonder what Linda would think of my citing 9 different groups as authoritative on the subject of tax cuts, using analogous organizations/bureaucracies.

Then by the same token, most every "Christian" church has a similarly compelling interest in an afterlife and literal heavens and hells and supernatural Gods being true.

Good morning Ziggy how are you? I wanted to answer some of my alerts before I went back to work. I already worked early (my shift is split). Global warming deniers are like evolution deniers to me. I once read a piece that the devil planted the fossils to fool everyone. (That is the truth) And there is a theme park in the United States with dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. If we had lived in the time of T-Rex we would be the extinct species. Global warming is just as definitive in volume of evidence as evolution. The deniers of both subjects puzzle me.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:I noticed that with the exception of NOAA (and VERY charitably the EPA), every group has a compelling interest in global warming being true. I wonder what Linda would think of my citing 9 different groups as authoritative on the subject of tax cuts, using analogous organizations/bureaucracies.

Then by the same token, most every "Christian" church has a similarly compelling interest in an afterlife and literal heavens and hells and supernatural Gods being true.

Ziggy,

You blew it. That's my point exactly. Just because a number of groups believe something (even a large number) does not therefore necessarily make it true.

You'll notice that of all my arguments for the Christian faith, I have never once said it is true because so many people believe it.

Faith is something that is not based necessarily in facts. It is a belief which is a totally different thing from evidence. Statistical probablitiy and statistical analysis of the information and the number of people supporting make a legitimate mathematical equation for its validity. It is more than likely true. And part of it is that because a number of scientists have reviewed and analyzed a group of data and drawn the same conclusions it is more probable than not that they are the group which is correct.

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:I noticed that with the exception of NOAA (and VERY charitably the EPA), every group has a compelling interest in global warming being true. I wonder what Linda would think of my citing 9 different groups as authoritative on the subject of tax cuts, using analogous organizations/bureaucracies.

Then by the same token, most every "Christian" church has a similarly compelling interest in an afterlife and literal heavens and hells and supernatural Gods being true.

Ziggy,

You blew it. That's my point exactly. Just because a number of groups believe something (even a large number) does not therefore necessarily make it true.

You'll notice that of all my arguments for the Christian faith, I have never once said it is true because so many people believe it.

What did I "blow"?

I simply point out that the pucuniary interests of churches is similar to the pecuniary interests you suggest of organizations which espouse global warming- that were the percieved truth of the propaganda to collapse that the support for the organization would collapse.

lindaredtail wrote:Faith is something that is not based necessarily in facts. It is a belief which is a totally different thing from evidence. Statistical probablitiy and statistical analysis of the information and the number of people supporting make a legitimate mathematical equation for its validity. It is more than likely true. And part of it is that because a number of scientists have reviewed and analyzed a group of data and drawn the same conclusions it is more probable than not that they are the group which is correct.

So you don't believe in "groupthink?" Have you ever worked for a government bureaucracy or an interest group?

I have worked for both, and I can tell you that much of what we passed off as fact (even "established" or "incontrovertible" fact) was very far from fact indeed.

You are right that scientists are paid by someone with an interest. Naturally the American Petroleum Institute's scientists are going to come up with numbers that make big oil look good, while the EPA scientists, tainted by what is called the "bureaucratic point of view," will find numbers that make their jobs look more necessary than they really are.

Actually I have worked for a government bureaucracy a very long time ago. But I do not in any believe that the big business the American Petroleum Institute is the same in principle as the EPA. Monetary profits are a compelling reason for tainted science. And in actually in cases like the FDA some believe that they are tainted by big business. Now the EPA has been involved in two questionable findings at least under Bush. www.cbsnews.com a. White House Undermines EPA on Cancer 4/28/08, Scientists Report Political Interference 4/24/08, EPA Fingers White House 8/23/03. These are cases which involved interference with scientists by the White House for corporate interests. Frequently government agencies are tainted by corporate lobbying efforts. Not making their jobs look more necessary.

Oh, I get it, Linda. People either agree with your view of they are in denial or have some agenda in conflict with global warming alarmists. Huh!

I have had folks sipping that global warming kook-aid make some of the most ludicrous claims....like my personal fave that RI is going to be totally submerged by 2020.

It seems to me those who worship at the feet of AlGore are little different from those that worship at the feet of Warren Jeffs or Jim Jones or any one of the multitude of kooks who have developed followings over the years. They are extremists and everything is black and white for them.

I believe the Earth is warming, it has done this before. Someday it will cool. Some of this is caused by human activity, but most of it is not. So while I use a reel mower and purchased "rebags" I'm not running around like Chicken Little crying about the falling sky or the melting snow. Al Gore has proven himself to be deceitful so many times in the past and is such an energy hog I don't concern myself too much with it.

I'm reminded of a great line from the Simpson's movie.

The old, wealthy tycoon Montgomery Burns turns to his assistant Smithers, in a time of disaster, and says "Smithers, I don't believe in suicide, but if you tried it, it might cheer me up a bit."

I do not believe the sky is falling. Stephanie could not have said it better. However, if Al Gore wants to convince me that the sky is falling, he could try showing me how to help rather than showing me how to "make it worse." I don't believe in human caused global warming, but if Al Gore is willing to make real-life sacrifices (and John McCain, too), then maybe it might make me feel better about their plan for MY future.