It's hilarious. The Times' only aim is to use recent weather history to manipulate a weak-minded public à la Jonathan Gruber. If several storms like this one occur in the next couple of years, the Times will soberly inform us that it's an increase in snow that's the obvious result of global warming. Yeah, yeah...that's the ticket, yeah!This kind of nonsense follows both a short-term and long-term cycles. The long-term one was the switch from predicting an ice age to predicting global warming in the early 1980's. No problem there. We're just switching our story to be the exact opposite of what it was. No one will notice!The short-term cycle is driven of course by whatever has happened most recently. Global warming will cause more hurricanes... oh wait, we're having fewer hurricanes, so that's caused by global warming, etc.At some point the long-term cycle will be up for renewal, and the Times will be back to reporting that we're obviously causing a new ice age. (Not just the Times, of course, but the whole enviro-politico-medio alliance.)I'm just glad that, as the Times was quoted as saying, "The facts are straightforward". Imagine what things would be like if they weren't!
If you go back and read some of the apocalyptic predictions when global cooling was the rage, the prescriptions for saving the Earth are exactly the same as today. It's almost like environmentalism is a cult where every solution just HAPPENS to coincide with a leftist agenda. Funny that.
"And yet, it moves."
Scientists are so stupid.
It's almost like environmentalism is a cult where every solution just HAPPENS to coincide with a leftist agenda. Funny that.Oh, those pitiful Hollywood liberals in Beijing, drinking the climate change Kool-Aid.
It's hilarious... The long-term one was the switch from predicting an ice age to predicting global warming in the early 1980's. No problem there. We're just switching our story to be the exact opposite of what it was. No one will notice!Yeah, hilarious... until someone checked. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1"The following pervasive myth [has arisen]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent... A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false." In the 1970s, "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature... global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus."
...every solution just HAPPENS to coincide with a leftist agenda.Yes, the key is that it always results in government gaining more power, and the people losing it.Though I made fun of their antics above, the reality is that no lie is too low for them to speak if they think it will get them what they want. It's as true in the environmental arena as it is in health care, where we've seen it so vividly demonstrated recently.Note that both those areas present opportunities for massive power grabs by government.
Yeah, hilarious... until someone checked...[global cooling was never...the scientific consensus.]The horror! Not the consensus! And we all know science ain't science without Consensus. Someone needed to tell the media it wasn't the consensus.Also, if you're going to link to an article that nobly defends global warming dogma, you might want to find one written by someone a little more restrained than William Connolley.
Excellent rebuttal: Scientific consensus, what a joke! Instead, look at all these 1970s Watts Up headlines, but do gloss over the ones where the identical wire service article is listed 5 or 6 times. Or the ones that say that the cooling theory is based on “controversial” “infant science” that is “not yet fully accepted in the scientific community,” and that any temperature drop would be reversed by “a little more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” And forget that most of the news articles are based entirely on a single researcher's statement, as opposed to the more than 100 researchers’ papers from the ‘70s cited in the “Myth” study (7 of which projected cooling). Nor is it important that the most recent Watts Up "ha ha" headline ran on Day 10 of the Iran embassy hostage crisis. The point is, those scientists all flipped their story 180 degrees... which as we know, is the very worst kind of dogma!
You don't by any chance have editing authority at Wikipedia, do you? Dr. Connolley was asking.
True, it's been rough on poor Billy Connolley, being permanently banned from editing any Wikipedia article related to global climate change.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._ConnolleyIt was also diabolical of Connelley to write, publish and peer-review all of those 1970s climate studies that mostly predicted global warming back when he was 13 years old, under dozens and dozens of pseudonyms, just so the data would be lying in wait decades later. What a dirty trick!
Well, well I guess you can't keep good old Bill down. I admit I wasn't able to wrap my head around why a leftist encyclopedia would with good conscience ban a fellow traveler. I guess in the long run they couldn't maintain it.Thanks for the link too showing that "No Chill Bill" is apparently as obsessively active as ever in policing the Consensus!
Snow Job: “Never trust an analyst pushing a policy agenda. My proof? Brent Bozell's Media Research Center NewsBusters (Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias).” Bend over, irony. Daddy’s comin’ through.
Yeah, because "Brent Bozell's Media Research Center" was just telling lies when it reported that Connolley had been banned.Do you have the same explanation for why this other organization reported the following in 2010:William M. Connolley, and [others] are each indefinitely banned from the CCT [climate change topic]."And yet, it cools."
I can't believe I let my bias get the best of me. But then, that's the whole point of bias. From now on, I'll try to measure up to the five W's credo of Bozell's MRC site, which dispassionately reported the simple, unadorned facts about the "radical" "propagandist" Connolley who'd been "maliciously altering," "hijacking" and "knowingly falsifying" the "bastion of left wing misinformation" with "impunity," a "horrendously biased and obsessed" "plot" which "smacks of a very unscientific effort to distort the truth.""And yet, it cools."Sure it does, Dullileo. All of the scientists used to say so, before they all dogmatically changed their minds. Yup, that's what happened.Let's go back to the elephant you've skipped over: Connolley & Co.'s look back at the imaginary 1970s "global cooling" verdict. Here's the link again:http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1You had a lot to say about the article without ever saying anything about the article. Maybe this time you can find the strength to make it past the two-thirds mark of the three-person byline.
It sounds like someone needs some cooling.
The climate must be getting warmer, because the only thing here is the sound of crickets.
Sounds like music to my ears, thank God.
What, still no answer? Don't tell me you're shaking and shivering like this because Time Magazine told you in 1975 you might be cold in 2015.
My, my, it got quiet.
And yet, it clucks.
Post a Comment