Gibbs: Worldwide Record Cold Result of Climate Change
When it was (incorrectly) asserted that 1998 was the hottest year on record, that was to be taken as proof that the Earth was warming and Mankind was responsible. Now, The United States is gripped by extreme cold, breaking records for low temps in many parts of the nation, and we are to take that as further evidence of manmade (anthropogenic) global warming.
If it’s hot, it’s global warming. If it’s cold, it’s global warming.
About half theÂ population still believes in anthropogenic global warming. That’s actually progress, but it’s a stunning testament to the failure of our schools to produce independent thinkers with an ability to reason.
“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Better it is to be of humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.”
– Proverbs 16: 18-19, the Bible
Rob N. Hood quoting scripture….I’m scratching my head on that one.
I may not be religious but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy a good read or occasional wisdom where ever the source. Scratch away scratchy-head.
You can’t change presidential stupidity in just one election, come on, be smart!
You also can’t change public stupidity very quickly either.
They hate to say they were wrong. Very simple.
So if global cooling were predicted and it started to get warmer, would they say that the warming was caused by cooling?
Ow. Stop it. I think you just broke my brain.
How about this painful one Dan-
‘They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing that I see the game.’-R.D. Laing.
Those with a vested interest in “Global Warming” (now called Climate Change) will continue to hammer on that theme and ridicule all opposition. The rest of us need to keep a level head. We must resist all the vast and costly government schemes based on phony analyses as exemplified by Mr. Al Gore and company. These schemes appear to be intended to enlarge government power and create open-ended taxation opportunities irrespective of real environmental issues.
Puuuuhhhlease… Government power and control will continue increasing along nicely without Mr. Gore. Did you fall asleep during the Dubya era? And Obama is merely another neo-conservative (fascist based, as are neo-liberals) in Dem clothing. They all are, except for those few who somehow end up dead or otherwise stripped of any real power.
You hate everyone. That’s actually very sad. Do you have anything that you have some optimism for? Come on, you just called Obama a neo-con. What!?!?!?!?!?
Well, if Bush was a “neo-con” then I guess Obama is too, since Obama has essentially taken Bush’s policies and injected them with steroids while stepping on the gas, but I don’t really think the characterization fits.
You are correct sir. Thanks for correcting Neil for once. And Neil, don’t libertarians hate everyone too? I guess I may have more in common with them than I even realized. Problem with you Neil is you don’t bother to connect the dots, except for the warming issue of course.
Real Liberals are starting to hate Obama, myself included. And they may not vote for hiim next time. so the Right will probably win big the next two elections including the big one in 2012. That is unless Obama starts acting like the Liberal he pretended to be while campaigning, and accomplsihes some much needed and important changes. But I’m not holding my breath.
Dan how would you define neo- conservative and neo-liberal? I have a hard time distinguishing the two, and I don’t have the time to research it right now. And if you don’t think the chariacterizations fits, even though you admitted the truth when you said Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was what? Not a neo-conservative? I believe he was very much a neo-con. What would you say he was?
The “classic” definition of neo-conservative stemmed from Reagan Democrats and pro-life Democrats who crossed over. They are the “moderate” wing of the GOP. It’s meaning has been distorted over the years, and picked up by the left as an aspersion against any and all Republicans, especially during the Bush presidency.
Bush was a “moderate” on fiscal and domestic policy, but a foreign policy / national defense hawk. Maybe neo-con fits in that context.
Neo-cons are NOT conservative and don’t represent the grassroots of the conservative movement or the Republican party.
I don’t know what a neo-liberal would be.
Obama didn’t campaign as a liberal. He campaigned as a populist, but it was, of course, all a big lie.
Yes I beleive it was a big lie. But then again it always has been, at least as long as I’be of voting age and paying attention. In fact at times there have been big crimes committed by those seeking the Presidency, but we won’t go there, now.
I disagree on a couple of your points however. Yes, Bush was described as a neo-con, and was that, but he was VERY radical, and VERY Right on everything he could get his hands on, within political parameters (for example he could have made abortion illegal, via the supremes but didn’t even seriously try- Repubs need those votes, forever). Chency was very extreme too, but that goes without saying. I agree they didn’t represent a certain group of Republicans, two actually: the old-time “original” (in my opinion) Repbulicans. They are the fiscally conservative who don’t want much international involvment, and “small” governement, whatever that means (small military? I guess not!). I would actually love having them back. The Reagan revolution killed that kind of Republicanism, for good maybe, who knows? The other group consists of people like you guys who really are Libertarian, but vote Republican much of the time, or at least have done so in the past.
To say Bush was “moderate” fiscally truly blows my mind. Truly.
Bush was not a moderate fiscally at all. Hell, we haven’t had a fiscal moderate since….hmm….good one….Slick Willy? Nah, anyway. The Bush tax cuts were not linked to spending cuts, so that was almost a waste. I think we need to slash spending AND slash taxes! and no I do not mean cut defense! Defense is a small portion of the budget, cut the fat, health and human services. That’s where the cuts have to come from. Other then that, things are good here. Glad to see you off that other topic Rob!
Defense is a “small” portion of the budget? Even if you exclude all the montrous waste and graft that occurs with it, it is HUGE. What kind of kool-aid are you drinking dude? Health and Humans services are at their barest bones now after decades of cuts. The military industrial complex gets HUGE increases every budget- even when they don’t ask for it ! We are like the USSR before their collpase- it’s killing us. Jeeez, get a clue. Otherwise, good post.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned – a request that could be an especially hard sell to some of the administration’s Democratic allies.
The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.
Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public.
President Obama asking for more monies to fight terrorists? Kudo’s to him! It’s about damn time!
Bush was a big spender. When it came to doling out tax dollars, he was very liberal with OUR money. That’s not being fiscally conservative. Bush got the bailout ball rolling, too. Tax cuts are great – government is too big and we have confiscatory taxation levels, but you have to actually shrink government and spend less along with the tax cuts. Bush cut some taxes and then spent like a drunken sailer. Did he veto any spending bills? None that I can think of.
Again we agree on something. In the world I live in I have seen and felt tax cuts for the wealthy personally. The type of work I do has enabled me to witness it first hand. is there fat everywhere, maybe. But many areas HAVE BEEN CUT relentlessly for the past 30 years- there is little left to cut there and it is hurting real poeple. I know you guys don’t care about that kind of pain- that’s your philosophy and that’s your right.
But I beleive there is a lot of fat in places that are rarely if ever cut, except somewhat recently, under Clinton. He touched sacred money and was impeached for it, and hounded, even hunted, byt the far right, his entire Presidency. I was not a huge Clinton fan, but I did vote for him. But what happened to him was unprecedented. Well, enough of that. There’s fat and it should be cut- will it? Not if depends on people like you guys. Except for maye the real radicals like Dan. Dan are you for cutting the bloated, obese, and sacred Miliatary??
Forget it, it’s like typing to a brick wall. Nothing will ever change.
Let’s hope that the medical profession doesn’t pickup on this nonsense. Using the twisted logic of the warmists, if your body temperature rises to 102F, it means you have a virus, but if your body temperature falls to 96F, that also means you have a virus. The warmists think that they’ve settled the debate with their “can’t lose” arguments, until the people rise up and shout “Scam”!
That means all warmist alarmists have the Flu. No wonder they cannot get things straight.
One year says nothing!
It is totally wrong to claim that the hot year 1998 was THE evidence for global warming; there are tons of evidence for it (e.g. look at the glaciers and polar areas);
by the way: winter 2010 was very cold in USA and Europe, but extremely warm in other regions:
In general: If you disagree with a established scientific theory then you have to bring really substantial contributions, but that is mostly not the case, nor in the case of evolution neither in the case of global warming.
Gee. I seem to recall posting more than one story on this site… Let me see where did all those other articles go?
This is just one nail in the coffin. A single article that comprehensively debunked every global warming claim would turn into a book. Anyway, I think you are missing the point. No matter what happens, it’s proof of global warming, and it’s getting ridiculous.
You can always count on the progressives to hijack something.
First, we had “Global Cooling” back in the ’70s. The science was sound, their conclusions made on what they knew back then.
Now we have “Global Warming”, based on (flawed) science, but based on science none-the-less.
Global Warming, like Global Cooling, was blamed on the activities of man. You see the dichotomy in that, don’t you?
The REAL DEAL?
Climate Change. Climate Change is a natural phenomenon that occurs naturally as the earth rotates and orbits. It has something to do with the life cycle of the animals and plants, which affects the atmosphere, and the sun’s activity. Given all these factors, you have periods of warm (interglacial) and periods of cold (glacial).
Where do the progressives come in? The HOT TOPIC (forgive the pun) is AGW. But now, they are using the term “Climate Change” and expecting people to buy of on the idea that “Climate Change” is somehow affected by man’s activities.
If man affects the climate with their SUV’s and Factories… where were these SUV’s and Factories during the last 2 interglacial periods, where scientists believe man existed? And how did the last 2 glacial periods come about?
Is “AWG” a scam? Most definitely, YES.
Is Climate Change man’s fault? Most definitely, NO.
Does that mean we should protect our environment? No, we should be concerned, but not because of AWG, but because we have to live here.