The year that was - Via Wizbang, AP picks the top 10 news stories of 2007. It's positively silly that "global warming" is at #6 since I can think of about a dozen other issues more important and, um, non-mythical.
(Note to Exxon/Mobil: still have not received large check. Please check outgoing mail.)
17 comments:
Yeah! Just this week, we learned that OVER 400 SCIENTISTS DISPUTE IT! And there's, what, only about 600 scientists in the world, so that's the untold story here. What do those big stupids at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change know, anyway? Like the ungrafted Senator Inhofe says, it's all a Nazi-like scam to raise the Weather Channel's ratings. Also, Al Gore is fat. WAKE UP AND REPORT THE REAL TRUTH, NEW YORK CRIMES!
Well, it was good of you to counter an argument I didn't make. But I'll respond anyway:
It's extremely telling that when those 400 scientists made their case, Saint Gore wouldn't deign to counter their conclusions with his own evidence. Instead he found that "20 or 30" of them received some kind of corporate funding so (*waving his hand*) they're all liars!
Well, I'm convinced, since only those who dispute global warming are pulling in super-clean money.
Whoops, not "dispute". "Support?" No, "believe." Like faeries!
Yep, and all those 'scientists' (you know, like the bureaucrats who write the UN reports that distort what their own scientists say) don't get *ANY* money from government grants on global warming, do they? So we can trust them, right? And what about not only the increasing ice (and decreasing temperatures) in the Antarctic, but the two-month early freezing of the Arctic this year? Why ignore that?
Oh, yeah, Pope Algore of the High Church of Global Warming says so.
An article for those of you who have faith in "futures trading" websites for predicting upcoming elections, in "wisdom of crowds" trends, etc.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/business/02weather.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all
Two consecutive years of volatile weather — last November and this October were the warmest on record for the New York City area, a retail Mecca — have proved disastrous for companies that rely on predictable temperatures to sell cold-weather clothing like sweaters and coats.
So the $200 billion American apparel industry, which is filled with esoteric job titles like visual merchandiser and fabric assistant, is adding a more familiar one: weather forecaster.
Liz Claiborne, the apparel company, has hired a climatologist from Columbia University to predict weather for its designers to better time the shipments of seasonal garments to retailers.
The discount retailer Target has established a “climate team” to provide advice on what kind of apparel to sell throughout the year. More and more, the answer is lighter weight, “seasonless” fabrics.
And the manufacturer Weatherproof, which supplies coats to major department stores, has bought what amounts to a $10 million insurance policy against unusually warm weather, apparently a first in the clothing business.
Fredric Stollmack, the president of Weatherproof, said that unseasonable weather, once a widely mocked excuse for poor performance in the industry, is the new norm, forcing companies to make sweeping changes in how they manufacture and sell clothing.
“I have been in this industry for 40 years, and during that time, we always knew it got cold in December and stayed that way through January and February — and that was that,” he said. “Now, it’s a crap shoot.”
The scientific debate over global warming may not be entirely settled, but in the American clothing business, at least, it is over.
Weatherproof has been in the clothing business for 60 years, Target for 45, Liz Claiborne for over 30. Maybe someone should tell these flighty, capricious corporations that they're wasting their money since global warming is "mythology."
Oh, OK: they're wasting their money.
In other news, I have a rock that keeps away tigers. You don't see any tigers around, do you?
And if an unprecedented increase in tigers was negatively impacting companies' bottom lines, you could sell that rock.
Maybe we should tell Weatherproof that it's all cyclical. And that in the last 2.5 million years, probably LOTS of overcoat manufacturers have had the same problems. That will make it all go away.
I *could* sell that rock! And it would have the same effect as a corporate weatherman.
The great preponderance of scientists accept the data. The great preponderance of nations accept the data. Even the great preponderance of anecdotal evidence (blooming plants, Pacific islands) supports the data. The business community (save energy companies and others who would lose profit) largely accept the data. Your own government accepts the data. Its dispute is not with the reality of the weather, but with the ultimate cost of the steps it would be obliged to undertake, particularly if a rival economy like China did not do the same.
The water line is rising, and you're pushing it back with your hands. You're still asking "whether" after most of the world has moved on to "why" and "what next."
No way, UTL. Global warming is a PROVEN MYTH! Now, if you want to talk something real and lethal, let's talk massive (Democrat-only) voter fraud!
Melting Arctic ice = random, recurring coincidence
Slashed tires = eviscerating the Constitution
Oh Lord. OK, let's assume global warming is real and dangerous. To hell with the Professor Emeritus of MIT who says differently; he's probably an Exxon shill.
If we're truly serious about curbing greenhouse gases there's two things we can do: raise milage standards and replace coal-burning power plants. But the Michigan congresspeople keep blocking milage standards while Ted Kennedy singlehandedly blocks a wind farm off Nantucket Sound. And nobody talks about nuclear power which is the only source of greenhouse-gas-free energy.
Where's the sense of urgency? Where's the crisis mode? When will Al Gore reduce his carbon footprint to, oh, maybe only twenty times the average American?
This is a feel-good cult. You all love to love Mother Gaia but the true sacrifice is for "somebody else."
But Al Gore. But Ted Kennedy. C'mon, try harder... you can come up with a But Bill Clinton to complete the set!
BTW, the sneaky Michigan congresspeople are doing a terrible job, since Congress raised the mileage standard 40% one week ago. But absolutely nothing since... where, I ask you? Where is the urgency???
In 2005, George W. Bush announced new mileage standards for light trucks that specifically exempted Hummers, Excursions and Suburbans... but the smarter cookies know it was all Levin's and Conyers' fault!
You're right: I didn't know that President Bush had signed the energy bill. And the first President Bush signed the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, the Clinton/Gore team...did something, I'm sure.
The point I'm making - which sailed way over your head - is that we Republicans hate the environments so it's not surprising when we drive our Hummers. But Democrats and tree huggers wallow in their own self-regard and good intentions. So does Al Gore deserve special criticism when his house uses more energy in a month than a typical Tennessee house uses in a year? Oh yes he does.
Let's hope that your "piggishness >>> sanctimony" argument is meant as a joke.
I doubt the Arctic current, which drives much of the Northern Hemisphere's weather and is currently at its lowest flowrate since scientific measurements began, cares much about the personality flaws of humans.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
...latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
...
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
...
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic.
But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models.
...
Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years.
"The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
...
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."
But Al Gore rides airplanes! And has a big house! Worst of all, he's Al Gore!
"Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion (U.S.) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison."
Once again: this is a feel-good cult that boosts its adherents self-regard without asking for any real sacrifice.
I'll tell you what though: if the Arctic ice-pack is gone in six years, I owe you a Coke.
If we could just give global warming a new name... who knows, maybe "Zocial Zecurity"... your situational faith in data, trends, projections, and expert consensus would surely come surging back.
Post a Comment