Gore: Smoking Cigarettes Causes Global Warming

I rest my case…..

Michael

PS (EL = Ever-Lovin’) My favorite phrase.

For a few others – hit your friends with glaciers in Greenland have been naturally shrinking for over a century (recent study. particularly important as Greenland is one of their favorite “points”)

- hit ‘em with up to 1/3 of methane being produced by plants. Methane is supposedly co2′s partner in global warming crime. chop down a tree today!

- hit ‘em with blizzards and extreme cold in Africa this year

- as I mentioned earlier, hit ‘em with coldest temps since 1979 in Antarctica were recorded this year

- glaciers that Pakistan and others in the region depend on for water are growing

- ice melting in the Arctic won’t raise sea levels. If they need proof, either send them to Junior High School, or put an ice cube in a cup, fill it to the top with water, wait til’ the cube melts then sit back and “ooh and ahh” at the fact that it never overflowed.

- Russian scientists say we’re about to start a period of Global Cooling that will last until the middle of the century

(links provided if anyone is interested and needs them)

I can’t wait until someone references The Mask of Zorro as evidence supporting reconquista or amnesty.

Well, congratulations, Miles, you’ve made the big time; now everyone who’s ever heard of you (except AP) thinks you’re a genuine horse’s ass…

O’Brien’s taking a beating today for allegedly having cited “The Day After Tomorrow” as evidence of global warming. He didn’t, though, as you’ll see: he referred to a “Day After Tomorrow scenario” which could be a “potential outgrowth” of global warming.

Dude where did you study reading comprehension? Of course he referenced the movies’ take on global warming to make his weak assed point that all the lies he told twelve years ago about GLOBAL COOLING, somehow weave seamlessly into his new vision of “Global Warming”, how does making reference to a fictional scenario in a fictional movie, NOT constitute using the movie to prove his point on global warming?

This guy was an IPCC author!!

Another response to the observed lack of warming is that “the data don’t matter”. Those very words were spoken by Chris Folland of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office at a meeting of climatologists in Asheville, North Carolina, on August 13, 1991. Shortly after that Folland added:

“Besides, we’re not basing our recommendations [for immediate reductions in CO2 emissions] upon the data; we’re basing them upon the climate models.” [14]

You’ve gotta love these guys… models can say whatever you want them to (GCMs are General Circulation Models):

One reaction to the poor correspondence of the GCMs with the observed data, and to the lack of warming, is to hypothesise a “natural” random cooling that just happens to cancel out the greenhouse warming.

To quote, verbatim, a “pro-warming” climatologist whose name I can’t exactly remember at the moment…

The data don’t [sic] matter.

Planetary warming is affected by the planet’s reflectivity to sunlight (Ban the NUCLEAR reactions on the SUN!), also known as “albedo.” When Mt. Pintatubo erupted, the ash and dust caused global COOLING for two years. Let’s not discuss that (it’s NOT P.C.).

Thus, if we (the United States) dropped several nuclear weapons on various places inhabited by rather unfriendly people, we could actually achieve global COOLING, due to the ash and dust clouds created by rather minor (on a global scale) detonations. If the heavy radioactive elements fell out of the dust cloud within 2 or 3 days (before spreading to the Western Hemisphere) and made various unfriendly places uninhabitable for the mythological “thousands of years,” well, who (aside from Dhimmicrats) would actually care? But let us look at the actuality of it all, based upon our actual experience in nuclear warfare.

For those people not caught in the neutron and gamma-flux radiation of the nuclear detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki (who WERE irradiated and suffered greatly for it), the nuclear weapons were not statistically significant (except that the irradiated land actually became MORE productive in terms of agricultural yields – and long-term cancer rates were, indeed, raised above national averages). This is why Stalin was not terribly concerned about Western nuclear weaponry. The reality contradicted the mythology. Humankind would perservere. There would be the long-term effects, but the survivor’s offspring would be borne and carry on. This may be a rather brutal assessment of the effects of nuclear war, but at least it dealt with REALITY.

For some reason, the global warming people never want to mention this alternative. I, personally, do not RECOMMEND using this tactic to “solve” global warming, but I have certain locales in mind where multiple nuclear detonations might have a salutory effect on the various unpleasant people (some million of whom are NOT just jihadi suicide-bomber-types) I’ve referenced above.

If someone has ACTUAL scientific results (not political mythology) to refute what I’ve learned (or have been taught) over the past couple of decades, I would be more than happy to examine their data. I try to keep an open mind, and have in the past altered my viewpoints when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. But remember, REAL science (in layman’s terms), NOT Olby-Hysteria-Syndrome.

By the way, did anyone else catch the story that Antarctica saw COLD temperatures this year not seen since 1979?

BTW, go Inhofe! That guy is a pit bull on this issue.

And, honestly, most of those scientists spice up the abstracts for their papers so that an ingorant media will talk about them, while the actually scientific research is much, much less certain. Of course, most of it (as noted) is based ENTIRELY on ridiculously contradictory computer models.

They actually got ONE computer model to correctly “predict” the last century given 19th century inputs, and they trumpeted it all around, like it proved something.

Supercereal!

-FFOG

Call it Global Grifting.

Taking into account natures cycles and not AlGore’s bad breath. Now there’s real emissions of Global Whining.

Or what about the heating caused by the increase in forest density due to restricting natural forest fires- a darker substrate absorbs more heat, i.e. evergreen canopies.

Even if Algore’s latest invention were true, we could easily throw ourselves back into an ice age by nuking Mt. Rainier. :)

The amount of emmissions from fossil fuels, in this country at least, is really restrictive as apposed to the developing nations like China and India. And they are not going to control their emmissions until enough people in their countries get sick enough to do someting about it.

Meanwhile, the media doesn’t have any stories to tell, like how many people getting bitten by sharks. Anyone remember those stories? It’s almost like a deflection against the real issues of today.

I must admit, Science Fiction is a lot more glamorous and fun than reality, and that’s the real inconvenient truth.

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix…