It's Getting Cold Out There

A Cooling World

A Cooling World

By Debra J. Saunders

No wonder skeptics consider the left’s belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion — last week in Italy, G8 leaders pledged to not allow the Earth’s temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

For its next act, the G8 can part the Red Sea. The worst part is: These are the brainy swells who think of themselves as — all bow — Men of Science.

The funny part is: G8 leaders can’t even decide the year from which emissions must be reduced. 1990? 2005? “This question is a mystery for everyone,” an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.

And while President Obama led the charge for the G8 nations to agree to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrial nations by 2050, the same Russian aide dissed the standard as “likely unattainable.”

No worries, the language was non-binding. Global-warming believers say that they are all about science, but their emphasis is not on results so much as declarations of belief.

Faith. Mystery. Promises to engage in pious acts. Global warming is a religion. While Obama was in Italy preaching big cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, he was losing some of his flock in Washington. The House may have passed the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill largely unread, but Senate Democrats are combing the fine print and not liking what they see. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said of the bill, “We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to be a sucker.”

Read the rest of this piece at Rasmussen Reports.

32 Responses to It's Getting Cold Out There

  1. Neil F. July 13, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    It’s nice to see that the U.S. Senators are actually reading the cap & trade bill. There’s hope!

  2. Paul Wenum July 14, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    Yes there is.

  3. Neil F. July 15, 2009 at 6:22 am #

    “We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to be a sucker.”
    A Democrat said that?
    This bill is in trouble it seems. But they could be just saying things like that, and still have every intention on voting for it. They are, after all, polititians, and thus are capable liars. I guess we will see when it comes to a vote.

  4. Paul Wenum July 16, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    I see some democrats are fudging.

  5. Neil F. July 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    Ladies and gentlemen, It is July 17, 2009, 9:00 pm. It is 62 deg. F. here in St. Paul, MN. Today, as I drove around the twin cities for my job, I had to turn my heater on.
    For the last week temperatures across the state of MN. have been around TWENTY degrees BELOW NORMAL.
    If you still think we are in a period of global warming, you’re as dumb as a box of rocks!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Teri Srur July 17, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    Neil you are so right. I am in this class called American Govornment and Politicts Today and I am getting soooo frustrated, The ignorance of people today. This is what she had said to me “I was digging deeper in hopes of understanding your viewpoint. Your initial post seemed to dramatize the efforts of our government to safeguard our planet’s future and eliminate fear in many American’s who currently don’t have healthcare. I don’t see this as the government stripping American’s of their freedoms.” That was also talking about the health care reform. She did not agree with my views about how we are going to be told what temp our thermostat can be set at and the cap and trade and the health care and how we are all going to be forced to drive migget cars. How are these not our freedoms being taken away. I wanted to say that she was dumb as a box of rocks but I could not do that without getting in trouble with the teacher, she had already told me I needed to be nicer.

  7. Neil F. July 18, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    Hey, this is a website I found called greenie watch. It’s a blog by a Dr. John Ray out of Brizbane Australia. There is a lot of good reading here and it is very informative.

  8. Neil F. July 19, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    “Of course lobbyists (and even some well-intentioned folks) are saying “we don’t have time to verify that new proposals really work — there’s too much at stake to wait another minute!”
    My contrarian view is: the more there is at stake, the more certain we
    have to be that what we are doing really works!”

  9. Neil F. July 21, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    Teri Srur:
    Thanks for your reply.
    Are you sure that the class isn’t called American Liberal government and politics today?
    I think you should ask questions, and don’t be afraid to disagree. Unless of course, you fear your grades will suffer.
    I think that if you think something is BS, you say why you think it is BS.
    Your teachers are trying to brainwash you…..Don’t let them!

  10. Rob N. Hood July 22, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    You people equate “freedom” to be anything you think you want to do, no matter the consequences. There are such things as repercussions, consequences, civil responsibility, morals, and laws which help civilized countries remain that way. No one person agrees with all of these “restrictions” but to act like you can and should decide that for yourself is immature and ridiculous. It’s a balance and can never please everyone. This is not the 1800’s, and you are not a lone cowboy out on the range makin’ it up as you go along…

  11. Neil F. July 22, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    I have the freedom to say that the world temperatures have not risen in the last 11 years. And, global warming isn’t happening.
    If you believe it is, and that the planet is warming, you are in denial, or you believe someone who is lying to you.
    You see, I am not just saying this, it is demonstrable with records and daily temperature measurements. My beliefs are not determined by computer model projections.
    Reality and facts do not support the AGW hypothesis. Period.
    I don’t see how you can continue to support that position especially since the foundation for it is deteriorating by the minute.

  12. Neil F. July 23, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    I’m sorry Rob. Were you trying to distract me again?

  13. Neil F. July 24, 2009 at 7:21 am #

    I am re-posting this from another comment thread because I am trying to refrain from going back and forth on the comment threads….

    You know it’s funny how facts have no bearing on your point of view. I am not going to argue these things with you because they are meaningless to the scope of this website. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion about them, I do, but that’s not why I’m here.
    The reason I am here is because there is a big lie going around that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the Earth to warm due to the so called greenhouse effect. And there are politicians and social elitists that are using that lie to bring about draconian changes to our society and economy, and this is the place for me, and anyone else, to speak out against it.
    So, if you don’t want to talk about the climate and RELATED political and social issues, I suggest you find somewhere else to pedal your pap.

  14. Rob N. Hood July 24, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Here’s some more “pap”: (peddle not pedal, and what the hell is pap?)

    In 1933, the American advertising industry proudly and publicly boasted that Hitler was copying their American propaganda techniques.

    After Hitler and Goebbels gave a bad name to propaganda, Freud’s nephew – psychologist Edward Bernays – simply re-branded propaganda as “public relations” and “professional journalism”.

    As veteran reporter John Pilger writes:
    Bernays, described as the father of the media age, was the nephew of Sigmund Freud. “Propaganda,” he wrote, “got to be a bad word because of the Germans . . . so what I did was to try and find other words [such as] Public Relations.” Bernays used Freud’s theories about control of the subconscious to promote a “mass culture” designed to promote fear of official enemies and servility to consumerism. It was Bernays who, on behalf of the tobacco industry, campaigned for American women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation, calling cigarettes “torches of freedom”; and it was his notion of disinformation that was deployed in overthrowing governments, such as Guatemala’s democracy in 1954. there are many other examples of this of course.

    • The corporate media are acting like virtual “escort services” for the moneyed elites, selling access – for a price – to powerful government officials, instead of actually investigating and reporting on what those officials are doing.

    • The U.S. military is instructing active duty personnel to post pro-government comments on social media websites.

    • Governments are paying civilians to write pro-government comments and to vote up or down stories favorable to their government.

    • Propaganda agents are using computer scripts on social networking sites to bury messages they don’t like.

    • The government is paying off reporters to spread disinformation. Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup. Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations.

  15. Neil F. July 24, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    Yeah, spelling isn’t my strong suit. Do you really want to play that game? I could very easily go over some of your posts and point out your (many) spelling errors and typos. But I’d rather not go there.
    There are several uses of the word pap. In this case it means: Material lacking real value or substance. Try a dictionary, they’re wonderful.
    My question is, what does any of that last post have to do with AGW?
    Are you trying to say that the sattelite temperature data, and the Arctic sea ice extent graphs are propaganda?
    I just really don’t understand what your point is. But, I did see something that caught my eye.

    • Propaganda agents are using computer scripts on social networking sites to bury messages they don’t like.

    That sounds like exactly what you do Rob.

  16. Neil F. July 24, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    And now, some propaganda!

    “Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”

    I love propaganda!!!!!!!!

  17. paul wenum July 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    Neil, Nice response to this fellow, Rob whomever he may be. No real thoughts just quoting others without his own thoughts. Another lemming.

  18. Neil F. July 25, 2009 at 6:31 am #

    Yeah, I am only interested in the climate debate and related political and social issues.
    Rob posts his tripe in the hopes of derailing the conversation because the climate debate is a loser for him.
    Actually the more whacked out his posts become, the more we know we are winning the argument.
    Think about it. What would his posts look like if the temperatures were rising, and evidence was mounting that the AGW hypothesis was correct?
    They would be completely different.
    In contrast, if the AGW hypothesis was proven to be correct, I would concede to the facts. Then there would be a proper foundation to debate what could, or should be done about it.
    But, of course, we know that is not the case.
    The world’s temperatures are not rising, and in FACT are cooling.
    The Sun is the ultimate driver of our climate, not CO2.
    Computer modeling of climate projections is unreliable, and is the only evidence in existance that supports the AGW hypothesis.
    There are no facts, or empirical evidence that suggest there is any validity, at all, for the AGW hypothesis.
    If you can provide something that refutes what I have just stated, post it.
    I don’t think you can because every single story on global warming sites computer models as it’s evidence. Even the IPCC bases it’s predictions on computer models. So good luck with that.

  19. Rob N. Hood July 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Yes, Neil, I know… you have corrected me nuuuumerous times. That’s why I corrected you… irony…. get it? zzzzzzzz….. Thanks for teaching me a new word, though, that’s something anyway. Pap smear…. ha ha ha. Oh well… I thought you’d find my post above interesting. Not only could you find intrigue in the obvious factoid about “agents”, of which I am not one, but all the other points as well. It fits with our conspiratorial view of the world, which is the only thing we do seem to agree on. And of course it has something to do with the topic you and Paul loooooove so much. Why you don’t recognize that is why I keep adding these ancillary aspects because you refuse to see or don’t want to see anything outside of your little box. That’s all. Nothing too strange that, eh? Wait… I hear Paul gearing up for another of his famous slap-downs. Gee Paul, you’re just not any fun.

  20. Neil F. July 25, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    Thin, very thin.

  21. paul wenum July 25, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    The one-siders never change nor think. Sad.

  22. Neil F. July 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    I actually have to disagree on that. Rob is not a one-sider….he’s all over the place!
    First it’s the super rich, now it’s the CIA. Who’s it gonna be next? Maybe the CFR or the trilatteral comission? I know, it’s Dick Cheney!
    He was first against the idea that global warming was a conspiracy, but now he seems to be saying it is, saying we share a “conspiratorial” view.
    I don’t know what to make of him. He changes all the time.
    But one thing is clear, he doesn’t want to talk about AGW. And, in my opinion, he doesn’t want us to talk about it either.

  23. Paul Wenum July 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    I like a difference of opinion such as Rob. We don’t know everthing, never will, and if we did, we would not even have this discussion. Discourse is health for both sides, even if we disagree. It is the total disregard for others findings in climatology unreported, that is troubling to me. My Grandfather and father taught me to look at both sides with a biased eye and then base your decision on not what they say but the facts behind their statements. I live with their statements in mind. Enough pontificating on my side. Later Neil.

  24. Rob N. Hood July 28, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    You guys are extremely consistent, that is your strength (although very boring and predictable too). Liberals do look at many angles and speculate more, that is a strength too, but in this country and political climate a big weakness. We’ve always had that weakness and always will. You guys on the other hand… anyway, I just read something I think is very profound. Phenomenon in nature tend to occur so quickly or so slowly that we humans often cannot understand certain phenomenon very well, if at all. Case in point- global warming. A very slow thing, yet potentially very threatening, to humans and other large animals at least. But what the heck, the earth is going to burn up in a few billion years anyways, right?

    Oh and btw, if there is a propaganda agent around here it would obviously be Mr. Dan McGrath. A lone Liberal dork like me isn’t going to make much difference on a site like this. Plus my posts would be much much better if I was getting paid for this. That is simple logic- but you guys don’t use the same logic as I do. You use some kind of parallel universe logic, handed out apparently to every other human (or American) at birth for some strange reason- perhaps just to amuse the Gods…

  25. Paul Wenum July 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    I suggest that you truly read both sides for once in your life. As to El Nino, it has been around for millions of years from your previous post above this one. I’m a salmon/trout fisherman. In the 1970’s El Nino caused major problems in Oregon, Washington State as well as other areas. It had nothing to do with “Global Warming.” It is a natural occurrance such as El Nina. I’m glad your are at least thinking, however get out of your “box.” Facts speak b.s.weeps. That’s all I have to say about it.

  26. Neil F. August 2, 2009 at 9:04 am #

    “Phenomenon in nature tend to occur so quickly or so slowly that we humans often cannot understand certain phenomenon very well, if at all. Case in point- global warming. A very slow thing, yet potentially very threatening, to humans and other large animals at least.”

    The climate has been in constant flux since the formation of the atmosphere. There have been slow changes, and relatively fast changes. Yet, humans have adapted to changes and have survived through hundreds of thousands of years of a constantly changing climate.
    Why do you think that the current changes in climate, either warming or cooling, is “potentialy very threatening”?
    Is it not logical to assume that we can adapt to climate change?
    Why do you believe that we won’t?
    I won’t dispute that the climate is changing. What I do dispute is that the changes are caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Out of 100% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, about .015% of them are anthropogenic.
    But hey, what the heck! If blaming climate change on humans will advance your social agenda… who cares?

  27. Paul Wenum August 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm #


    I just state what I know from being in the outtdoors such as Alaska canoeing around the glaciers that change daily. Sometimes they are smaller, the next year larger again. A constant flux of natural change. (Roy Spencer) I must be to simplistic to fathom the “real world” that Rob as well as others portray. Am I mssing something because I talk like the average guy on the street? That’s sad, if true.

  28. Rob N. Hood August 4, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    Gosh Paul, I had no idea your canoeing constituted scientific reasearch status. Maybe you deserve a PhD, in Canoe Climatology, or Paddle Dipping Oceanography, or maybe just a B.S. in bull-___!

  29. Paul Wenum August 4, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    Rob, The guides that I was with state emphatically that people like you in the lower “48” don’t even know the truth. They have been there for years and the glaciers are NOT shrinking!. I listen to the locals that “LIVE IT.” Not dribble from people like you. Take a vacation as I said before. I suggest Alaska and get together with people that live there not what you read from the media.

  30. Paul Wenum August 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    By the way RoB , I was wrong. I was Kayaking not canoeing. Does that make a difference? I still paddled. I’m not PC like others. Finally, seeing is believing. Suggest you start looking.

  31. Rob N. Hood October 7, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Send me a ticket and I’m there!

  32. Paul Wenum October 11, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    You would have a blast.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.