Video: Barrasso, Inhofe tag-team Boxer on 1970s “New Ice Age” exposure of Holdren

posted at 9:30 am on March 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’m old enough to remember when scientists issued alarms over a coming Ice Age that would wipe out life on Earth on a massive scale. Senator John Barrasso’s memory holds up pretty well, too, and he reminded everyone of the consensus in the 1970s that the climate had begun to cool so significantly that, er, the world needed massive government interventions in energy production and consumption to survive it. Barrasso quotes from Newsweek and Time articles of the period. Senator Tom Udall attempts to ride to EPW Chair Barbara Boxer’s rescue by introducing an article that claims the global-cooling consensus of the 1970s was a “myth,” and Boxer urges Udall to add it to the record. But that’s just the set-up Jim Inhofe needed to complete this two-man demolition of “consensus” and to expose the main White House adviser on climate change as a chronic crank, as the Daily Caller reports:

The exchange started with Barrasso addressing the committee’s witness, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson.

“Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” said Barrasso. “So if we had committed the same amount of taxpayer resources and government manpower that the administration now wants us to commit to prevent global warming — if we’d done that prevent global cooling, we wouldn’t be the most prosperous nation on earth.” …

Still later, Inhofe got into the science debate by citing a 1971 study by Dr. John Holdren, who just so happens to be President Obama’s advisor on science technology. In that study Holdren wrote, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here.” Holdren went on to write that the effects could “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

A visibly satisfied Inhofe then turned to Boxer, and stated, “So even the president’s people are agreed with me, Madam Chairwoman!”

The passage scanned at Zombietime is even more explicit about Holdren’s hysteria over hypothermia, emphases Zombie’s:

It seems, however, that a competing effect has dominated the situation since 1940. This is the reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about .2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age.Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C. We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants. A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface(albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.

Remember — Holdren is one of the leading voice in the US on global warming now.  He’s also Obama’s climate-change czar.

I haven’t seen that kind of a setup and payoff since Bob Hope and Bing Crosby made movies with Dorothy Lamour. That was during the period when American industry and economic expansion held the national consensus rather than Chicken Little hypotheses with chronically faulty models and contradictory results. Man, I guess I am getting old.

Update: Sen. Inhofe’s office wrote to correct the identification of Mark Udall in the video, which I got from the DC.  It’s actually Tom Udall, his brother.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

A visibly satisfied Inhofe then turned to Boxer, and stated, “So even the president’s people are agreed with me, Madam Chairwoman!”

Translation: Your so-called science advisor is three French Fries shy of a Happy Meal!

pilamaye on March 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Got getm’ Barrasso, Inhofe. Time for the truth to come out.

NickDeringer on March 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Boxer lied at the end. She said most scientists did not believe in threat from cooling in the 70′s. The articles said there was a consensus.

LIES.

artist on March 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

So let me guess, the “fix” for the coming ice age back then is exactly the “fix” for global warming?

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

That was nicely done and Boxer sounded a little…uh…quick to sort of agree and move on.

Bishop on March 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM

The Road to Singapore Global Cooling Warming

cmsinaz on March 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM

I love it. I remember this too. We need real scientists not these terror mongers who are paid by socialists to control the population. The so called climate scientists are just snake oil peddlers with no scientific training (it shows). I just love it when some critter develops a computer program that predicts the future – wow – am I NOT impressed.

MoGal on March 3, 2011 at 9:41 AM

But that’s just the set-up Jim Inhofe needed to complete this two-man demolition of “consensus” and to expose the main White House adviser on climate change as a chronic crank

I love it when a plan comes together…

ladyingray on March 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

I’m old enough to remember when scientists issued alarms over a coming Ice Age that would wipe out life on Earth on a massive scale.

I remember the cover of either Look or Life with an urban setting actually covered in ice. My step father read the article to my younger brother and I about how an Ice Age was believed to be coming. He just said, “Scientists don’t know everything.”

But it was scary for kids to hear that kind of talk from adults. I’m sure talk of Global Warming has had the same effect on kids today. And that’s what its proponents want of course.

BTW Ed, you’ve made me feel real old now.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age.

Honestly speaking, there is a lot more evidence that the climate is unstable downward than upward. There seems to be a lot of things working against it getting significantly warmer, but we know that something causes it to get cooler dangerously fast.

Count to 10 on March 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Is global cooling why we had to stop using aerosols and freon?

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

All your climate czars are belong to us.

SD on March 3, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Goodness gracious, that Senator Ma’am is a vacuum personified.

onlineanalyst on March 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM

So how exactly does it make Boxer’s case to point out that the global cooling hysteria of the 70s was a myth? It would seem to me that ought to make the current global warming hysteria even more suspect.

NoLeftTurn on March 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Is global cooling why we had to stop using aerosols and freon?

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

No, that was supposedly to save the ozone layer … supposedly.

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM

And BTW, once again when Republicans offer fact and cite references, both Democrat cite only opinion. They wanted to believe there was no consensus I suppose.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM

So let me guess, the “fix” for the coming ice age back then is exactly the “fix” for global warming?

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Yes … Reduce or stop fossil fuel usage and builds lots of trains.

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Is global cooling why we had to stop using aerosols and freon?

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

That was the hole in the ozone layer, ostensibly.

JeffWeimer on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Most poorly written headline I’ve ever seen on Hot Air: “Video: Barrasso, Inhofe tag-team Boxer on 1970s ‘New Ice Age’ exposure of Holdren”

Huh?

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

It’s hot!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s cold!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s snowing!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s beautiful out!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

Build more trains! It’s the only way!!!!!!!

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Translation: Your so-called science advisor is three Freedom French Fries shy of a Happy Meal! pilamaye on March 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Akzed on March 3, 2011 at 9:53 AM

No, that was supposedly to save the ozone layer … supposedly.

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM

They said it was man’s shame to destroy the atmosphere through the simple use of convenience products. Hairspray and such. That it would take forever to undo the damage. Growing ever, ominously bigger and bigger and bigger and letting in UV rays UNTIL……

It suddenly disappeared and people stopped talking about it.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

JeffWeimer on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

I remember that but I can’t remember if the whole in the ozone caused warming or cooling. All these scams run together in my mind.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I can hardly wait for the Dems to pull in their ‘heavy guns’ on this one….AlGore, for instance.

alwyr on March 3, 2011 at 9:57 AM

As a 40+ year old, I too remember the two primary concerns of being a kid in the 70s….

1. Nuclear destruction in a war with the USSR – I doubt any kid born in the last 25 years can possibly understand the utter FEAR that at any moment we could be facing a nuclear holocaust, not stupid s**t like polar bears dying off slowly…no, we were worried that the only thing left would be cockroaches. When the Berlin Wall came down, I immediately was stunned to think that I lived in an age where such a significant event (even bigger than us walking on the moon) in my lifetime…Reagan took us from the brink of the total destruction of the planet (not raising the temperature by 1 degree in the next 100 years, but the actual, physical destruction of all life on the planet).

2. The coming Ice Age – holes in the ozone, pollution, nuclear winter…you name it. The fear was we would all be sitting huddled around 55 gallon barrels warming our hands on dung after all of the oil/energy was held captive by the Saudi’s. The other thing I remember hearing was how little energy we had, that our use of energy (especially petroleum and coal) was unsustainable and would run out within 20 years…

Basically, if you live long enough to personally witness how full of s**t these enviro-zealots are, you just start to think that these people shouldn’t be allowed within 200 meters (heh, another failed plan from Carter) of any educational institution.

Geministorm on March 3, 2011 at 9:58 AM

I remember that but I can’t remember if the whole in the ozone caused warming or cooling. All these scams run together in my mind.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM

It didn’t do anything except increase UV exposure to anyone or anything underneath it … if it actually existed.

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Cooling, warming, over population, tidal waves, aaaaaaack!!! Okay, I’m totally convinced. Tax me MORE!

bitsy on March 3, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Count to 10 on March 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM

On that note, isn’t the Earth officially an ice-planet?

OldEnglish on March 3, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM

It was supposed to increase skin cancer because eventually the ozone layer would disapear and stop blocking some UV. the holes appeared over the poles, and fluctuated throughout the year.

JeffWeimer on March 3, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I remember that but I can’t remember if the whole in the ozone caused warming or cooling. All these scams run together in my mind.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM

It was supposed to give everyone skin cancer, I do believe.

OldEnglish on March 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM

On that note, isn’t the Earth officially an ice-planet?

OldEnglish on March 3, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Not to my knowledge, but I haven’t looked into the technical definition of that.

Count to 10 on March 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Oh, so it effected my tan! Good to know.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Maybe you can give him an extra credit assignment to boost his grade point average in your class.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Maybe we went overboard in preventing Global Cooling, and that has led to Global Warming.

So the Goracle was right! Global Warming is man-made!

And it’s Holdrens’ fault.

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

All you’ve got?

DrSteve on March 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

JeffWeimer on March 3, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Hey, slow down, will ya. I can’t keep up! :)

OldEnglish on March 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Ladies, and gents! Proof once again, that even nature doesn’t always get it right. See above. ;)

capejasmine on March 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

1970 evil gas: SMOG

2010 evil gas: CO2

Its clear that climate scientists are modern day alchemists.

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Remember — Holdren is one of the leading voice in the US on global warming now. He’s also Obama’s climate-change czar.

The Weathermen Reloaded

Shy Guy on March 3, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Count to 10 on March 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I think I read it in the Britannica, in the climate section, but I’ll need to go back and check, too.

OldEnglish on March 3, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Hard for me to believe that they still haven’t figured out how easy it is in this day and age to produce the evidence of their lying.

Eren on March 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM

It’s hot!

It’s cold!
darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Haha! Those are the 2 excuses our 2 year old granddaughter tried on us to get out of taking a bath a few week’s ago.

Shy Guy on March 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM

House Republicans can claim “bipartisanship” in their bid to handcuff the EPA’s climate change rules.

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told POLITICO on Wednesday that he will be co-sponsoring the legislation from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that puts a freeze on EPA’s regulatory agenda for major industrial polluters like power plants and petroleum refiners.

“The EPA needs to be reined in,” said Peterson, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee and a frequent critic of the agency.

J_Crater on March 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Barrasso, Inhofe tag-team Boxer…

Enough said.

Geministorm on March 3, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Most poorly written headline I’ve ever seen on Hot Air: “Video: Barrasso, Inhofe tag-team Boxer on 1970s ‘New Ice Age’ exposure of Holdren”

Huh?

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

*flush*

fossten on March 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I’m old enough to remember that also. I remember in grade school they used to pass out something called “The Weekly Reader” it was like news mag for kids. I distinctly remember one cover with the headline “The Next Ice Age”. Ha.

vcferlita on March 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people ……, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels & Saul Alinsky- the poster boys of the Dems/MSM.

redridinghood on March 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I’m 44… I remember the Coming Ice Age hysteria of the 1970s. It was so prevalent that we covered in my Social Studies class. It wasn’t some obscure theory of a few rogue scientists… it was the “consensus”.

Here’s the irony… they feared the Ice Age as a threat to food production and argued that Global Warming would be far more desirable.

Hmph.

mankai on March 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Obfuscate much?

mankai on March 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM

vcferlita on March 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Oh! The Weekly Reader! I wonder if it is still around and what it looks like today? I shudder to think.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Show me someone with a history of correct predictions, and maybe I’ll listen to them. But when people who have consistently been wrong about the future tell me about the future, I tend to tune them out.

hawksruleva on March 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Quoth Charlie Sheen: Winning

MJBrutus on March 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

mankai on March 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM

His/her brilliance knows no bounds this morning. Check out 9:48 a.m.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/02/more-wsj-poll-huge-majorities-reject-significant-cuts-to-entitlements-but-some-reforms-are-okay/

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Never use a leftie’s own words against them.
They hate that.

NeoKong on March 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM

hawksruleva on March 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

I wish we could tune these people out but unfortunately they are being given free reign to write regulations that will govern almost every aspect of our lives.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM

blink on March 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM

The truly important thing about it was it led the GWers to believe the public was pliable, and gave them a political template for executing their agenda.

JeffWeimer on March 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I think we have a lot more to fear from an ice age than global warming. There is evidence that the earth really does go through cycles of cooling, with periodic ice ages, and an ice age would be far more damaging to our way of life, imo, than the theoretic global warming scenario. Hopefully it’s a long way off. Gobal warming is a good thing if it prevents an ice age, maybe we all need to produce more CO2.

mbs on March 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

It’s hot!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s cold!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s snowing!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s beautiful out!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

Build more trains! It’s the only way!!!!!!!

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM

You left out one important component:
Give my your money and your freedom!!!

hawksruleva on March 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Boy it was friggin cold walking the dog this morning. About 20 degrees or so. Tomorrow with some global warming, I’m expecting it to hit 50. Nice.

Rich on March 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM

That was Tom Udall from NM, not Mark from CO, carrying water for Senator Ma’am.

mchristian on March 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM

I recall the “ice age” hysteria from my Environmental Studies course in 1974. That was at an Ivy League bastion of correctness.

disa on March 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM

I think we have a lot more to fear from an ice age than global warming. There is evidence that the earth really does go through cycles of cooling, with periodic ice ages, and an ice age would be far more damaging to our way of life, imo, than the theoretic global warming scenario. Hopefully it’s a long way off. Gobal warming is a good thing if it prevents an ice age, maybe we all need to produce more CO2.

mbs on March 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

For humans, cold weather is much more deadly. And the famine caused by reduced crop yields increases food prices dramatically.

hawksruleva on March 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Most poorly written headline I’ve ever seen on Hot Air

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

getalife.

Del Dolemonte on March 3, 2011 at 10:35 AM

1. Nuclear destruction in a war with the USSR – I doubt any kid born in the last 25 years
Geministorm on March 3, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Living in california, we were taught duck and cover drills – not to protect ourselves from earthquakes, but to protect ourselves from The Bomb. Imagine that when I was growing up in So Cal, that was a bigger threat than earthquakes.

kurtzz3 on March 3, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Boxer lied at the end. She said most scientists did not believe in threat from cooling in the 70′s. The articles said there was a consensus.

LIES.

artist on March 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

When people generically claim politicians lie, count on the “politician” they’re talking about to be a Democrat in at least a 2 to 1 ratio.

scotash on March 3, 2011 at 10:36 AM

can hardly wait for the Dems to pull in their ‘heavy guns’ on this one….AlGore, for instance.

alwyr on March 3, 2011 at 9:57 AM

I don’t think Washington DC could withstand the blizzard that invariably would decend on DC should they try and bring Manbearpig to the committee.

44Magnum on March 3, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I think we have a lot more to fear from an ice age than global warming. There is evidence that the earth really does go through cycles of cooling, with periodic ice ages, and an ice age would be far more damaging to our way of life, imo, than the theoretic global warming scenario. Hopefully it’s a long way off. Gobal warming is a good thing if it prevents an ice age, maybe we all need to produce more CO2.

mbs on March 3, 2011 at 10:30 AM

We should be preparing to cope with climate change instead of trying to prevent it. Like sorting through seeds and preparing more cold weather hardy types.

These lefties are happy to deny the hand of God and worship Darwin, but they aren’t very comfortable with the results of evolution and what causes it, are they?

disa on March 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Ed, that’s senator TOM Udall, D-NM.

GoodSamaritan on March 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

It’s hot!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s cold!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s snowing!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

It’s beautiful out!

Ban fossil fuels!!!!

Build more trains! It’s the only way!!!!!!!

darwin on March 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM


BTW – Trains run on fossil fuels.

barnone on March 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Carbon credits were just a twinkle in the Goracle’s eye in the ’70s. It takes time to come up with a plan.

a capella on March 3, 2011 at 10:43 AM

I haven’t seen that kind of a setup and payoff since Bob Hope and Bing Crosby made movies with Dorothy Lamour.

BadaBing BadaBOOM!!!!

huskerdiva on March 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM

We should be preparing to cope with climate change instead of trying to prevent it. Like sorting through seeds and preparing more cold weather hardy types.

disa on March 3, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Didn’t Montana just “endorse” global warming? A +2 degree average temp change and longer growing season would be fantastic for Montana and Canada!

barnone on March 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Interesting. First time I’ve seen a Chairhag.

misterpeasea on March 3, 2011 at 10:45 AM

My high school science teacher circa ’71, a youngish smug pain in the ass, told our class that he and his wife were not going to have children because they believed that they would live to see them starve to death – from the affects of the coming New Ice Age. Those children would be approaching their 40′s by now. Of course, we’re probably better off without them, and this pompous ass is probably telling some group of current teens that they are also doomed – from the affects of the coming Big Warming. Fortunately, I was too busy smoking dope and chasing girls to worry about his nonsense.

Hucklebuck on March 3, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told POLITICO on Wednesday that he will be co-sponsoring the legislation from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) that puts a freeze on EPA’s regulatory agenda for major industrial polluters like power plants and petroleum refiners.

“The EPA needs to be reined in,” said Peterson, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee and a frequent critic of the agency.

J_Crater on March 3, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Now there’s a stand-up guy!!! Good for Minnesota -Spose he’s feeling the BAchman heat?

huskerdiva on March 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Meh. Mild stuff. I have a different vision of tag-teaming.

If Inhofe had stripped down to red spandex bathing trunks and pinned Boxer against that polished oak dais, then Boxer had brought in Lisa Jackson, and Barrasso had then tossed her over the chairs into the cluster of eager-eyed earth-saving interns, now that would have stirred my morning juices.

rrpjr on March 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Translation: Your so-called science advisor is three Freedom French Fries shy of a Happy Meal! pilamaye on March 3, 2011 at 9:37 AM

DING…DING….DING…. We have a thread winner!!!!!

huskerdiva on March 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

But, incredibly, after discussing the by-then well-known “greenhouse effect,” Holdren sets that concept aside and instead predicts that the coming global overheating will be caused not by the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide but instead simply by human-caused excess heat generation. As he puts it, “the remaining major means of interference with the global heat balance is the release of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels. As pointed out previously, all this energy is ultimately degraded to heat. What are today scattered local effects of its disposition will in time, with the continued growth of population and energy consumption, give way to global warming.” In other words, it’s not the greenhouse effect that will get us in the long run, but merely energy generation itself as a concept; even nuclear energy, which produces no greenhouse gases, is bad because it produces energy which inevitably becomes heat.

In other words, only cold-blooded species should be allowed to exist on Earth. Warm-blooded species will eventually ruin it for everyone.

Lead the way, Holdren.

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 10:51 AM

mankai on March 3, 2011 at 10:20 AM

His/her brilliance knows no bounds this morning. Check out 9:48 a.m.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/02/more-wsj-poll-huge-majorities-reject-significant-cuts-to-entitlements-but-some-reforms-are-okay/

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Well, it’s hard to argue with that kind of logic.

mankai on March 3, 2011 at 10:51 AM

I haven’t seen that kind of a setup and payoff since Bob Hope and Bing Crosby made movies with Dorothy Lamour.

The laughs! The thrills! Watch as our heroes try to stop the EPA from putting US industry and economic hope on ice… in the new film from DC Pictures, The Road to China.

mankai on March 3, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I haven’t seen that kind of a setup and payoff since Bob Hope and Bing Crosby made movies with Dorothy Lamour.

Barrasso and Inhofe should have serenaded Boxer with a few choruses of “Moonbat Becomes You” to really cement the connection.

jon1979 on March 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

It suddenly disappeared and people stopped talking about it.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Not completely… check any online weather report and you will see a “UV index”. It’s a left over bit of hysteria cuz you just never know when it may come in handy.

TheCulturalist on March 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Cronics cranks? Is that what they call socialiswts these days?

Don L on March 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

I remember in 1977 i bought a new snowmobile,thought i’d be riding at least 6 month’s a year,turned out the next 15 year’s we had our New Years party on jet skies with wet suits.

heshtesh on March 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

bifidis on March 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

All you’ve got?

DrSteve on March 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Well, that and a nasty rash down south.

Aviator on March 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

So, if the earth warms, the polar ice caps melt, and sea levels rise by as much as 20 feet.

If the ice age comes, the polar caps grow, and push down on the water, increasing sea levels by 20 feet.

Dayum, it must be real convenient to be able to cash in on catastrophe no matter which way it goes!

MassVictim on March 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM

[...]turned out the next 15 years we had our New Years party on jet skies with wet suits.

heshtesh on March 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

That’s because I dumped all that CO2 into the air for you. You’re welcome.

MassVictim on March 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM

The big difference between global warming and global cooling activism is the organization of the global warming people to assure (a) that other voices are suppressed, and (b) that research money goes only to those organizations which advocate that man made global warming is a source of harm to the environment. In the era of “global cooling”, there was no Al Gore type individuals who were in government and who stood to profit personally from the advocacy of such a position (both the US and the UN suffer from this affliction of climate profiteers). There were no anecdotes written by freelance journalists which were accepted with the gravity of a peer reviewed journal. There were no packing of boards on peer-reviewed journals to assure that contrary research was suppressed. There were no cherry-picked results, fudge factors, or special computer code to assure that results matched hypotheses.

There was no tidal wave back then, as Mr. Holdren posits, and none of the things he warns about now will come to pass either. Here in California, we face the biggest budget crisis in our history, and the State just passed a law requiring the power companies to purchase more “green power” from providers. These people do not understand that their personal profiteering is hurting the common people they claim to represent.

unclesmrgol on March 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Minor quibble with the correction: Tom and Mark Udall are cousins.

mchristian on March 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM

These people do not understand that their personal profiteering is hurting the common people they claim to represent.

unclesmrgol on March 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Sure they do, they just don’t care as long as they personally profit.

Aviator on March 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Didn’t fracking turn the tide on Global Cooling and start the New Hot Age? I’m sure I have a memo on my desk somewhere informing me that Fracking is the new “Villain of All Things”… CO2 is so last decade.

TheCulturalist on March 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM

The Global Warmists have already announced that there was never a consensus on Global Warming. They’re already moving on to their next thing as we speak…

The Mega Independent on March 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

unclesmrgol on March 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Mainly, they needed to wait for computers powerful enough to run their bogus climate models fast enough to form a consensus.

TheCulturalist on March 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

For the record, we’re near the end of a temporary warm spell in a long ice age.

But that’s just data. Who pays attention to data anymore?

ZenDraken on March 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Video: Barrasso, Inhofe tag-team Boxer

Pardon me while I go fetch the brain bleach.

It's Vintage, Duh on March 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Wait, isn’t global warming climate change climate disruption caused by racism?

MassVictim on March 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM

So, if the earth warms, the polar Antarctic ice cap melts, and sea levels rise by as much as 20 feet.

If the ice age comes, the polar caps grow, and pushes down on the water, increasing sea levels by 20 feet.

Erh…no. The sea level produced by the Arctic ice cap is already fully accounted for (its floating like an ice cube in a glass…no change in sea level no matter large the cap gets). The ice sheet in Antarctica is on land…no water to push down on…..

Dayum, it must be real convenient to be able to cash in on catastrophe no matter which way it goes!

MassVictim on March 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

BobMbx on March 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM

We know. But that’s what we were told in the 70s (see vid), and in the last decade.

MassVictim on March 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2