By Paul Yeager
A massive snowstorm is slamming America’s midsection — again. New York City just set a record for January snowfall. The South has experienced bitter cold, snow and ice this winter.If the Earth is getting warmer, why’s it so darn snowy and cold?
Are the U.S. winter extremes proof that global warming isn’t happening or is even a hoax, as some skeptics suggest? Or are the winter extremes a product of a warming atmosphere, as many climate change advocates assert?
While opinions about climate change vary greatly, even among experts in climate science, the consensus is that short-range weather events have little to do with the climate change debate.
There’s no debating that it’s been cold, especially in January. According to Deke Arndt of the federal National Climatic Data Center, “January 2011 will rank among the coldest 20 percent of Januarys on record since 1895.” December brought the coldest temperatures on record to parts of South Florida, although the month averaged near normal for the nation as a whole because the Southern cold was balanced by warmth elsewhere.
If it snows it is global warming, if it doesn’t, it is global warming. If the earth is hit by a meteor it is global warming and if it is a near miss then it is either global warming or a weather event closely related to global warming. If I go to Florida for a week to escape frostbit fingers (caused by global warming) I am being blamed for global warming. If I stay here and enjoy frostbit fingers while shoveling out 3′ of snow, breathing heavily, I am blamed for global warming. All I can say is that is some weird science!
Bring on Global warming! I’m tired of snow!
You just spent two weeks in Hawaii… big baby.
The ever changing hypothesis of anthropogenic global warm…. er… climate chang….er… climate disruption! What I think is funny is when there is a heat wave, or drought, or a hurricane it’s a smoking gun for AGW. But when there are events such as record cold, snow storms and the like, you here things like this.
“Since climate change is by definition the long-term change in weather, it is not possible for a quality scientist to say that any given event is directly related to climate change.”
I’m not knocking the scientist who said that, it can apply to any extreme weather event, and it is a reasonable statement. I just wish the media would say the same when there is hot weather, instead of breaking out pictures of the Polar Bear on the tiny raft of ice, or the b-roll of calving glaciers falling into the sea. I just think it is outrageous that when it’s hot there is a call for action, but when it’s cold there’s a call for reason.
Yes and the earth is flat.
In a compelling article in the Washington Monthly, “Get the Energy Sector Off the Dole,” Jeffrey Leonard suggests that eliminating all government energy subsidies and tax credits for non-renewable and renewable energy sources will level the playing field and allow the free market to drive new energy technologies. According to the article, about 70 percent of all federal energy subsidies goes toward oil, natural gas and coal (billions of tax dollars every year!), 15 percent to ethanol, 10 percent to large hydro-power and 5 percent to renewables. Eliminating all subsidies will help make wind, solar and other green energy cost competitive.
Rob, What the heck just happened. H E 2xL has frozen over!!!! We agree on something…. I am with you on this one point. Get rid of the subsidies!!!!!
ALL OF THEM!!!!
Leave it to a Liberal to count money that was not collected as tax dollars. Look, if you want to say that tax breaks are a subsidy… fine, whatever. But the fact is that oil, natural gas, and coal companies do not collect any money from the government. Their “subsidies” are in the form of tax breaks, which is money that they don’t have to pay in taxes, which does not come from our tax dollars. If you want to argue about that, you won’t get anywhere with me because I don’t think they should be getting tax breaks either, but that is another issue entirely.
On the other hand, so called “renewables”, wind, solar, and other “green energy” technologies do get actual “subsidies”, i.e. sums of money from the government, which does come from our tax dollars. See the difference there?
Oh, and the big laugher here is “Eliminating all subsidies will help make wind, solar and other green energy cost competitive”. If I was drinking milk when I read that I would have had dual streams coming out of my nostrils!!! If subsidies were eliminated for them they would whither on the vine and die. They would not become “cost competitive”, they would become “cost prohibitive” and they would lose money like me at a blackjack table!!!! (Trust me….. it’s why I don’t gamble)
No, Al Gore says the biggest snow storm ever seen – proves he was right all along!
AG: Heads, it global warming, tails its global warming – you lose! Wanna play (pay) again?
Well, Jerk that’s why I’m so anti-corporate. The big guys have gotten a free ride (no, more than a free ride! It’s been a paid-to-be-extremely-profitable-and-gouge-the-taxpayer ride for a very long time for the big multi-nationals). And we are now reaping the ugly results of that both economically and politically.
Well now you have lost me Rob. Not in the sense that I don’t understand you but in the sense that I don’t agree with you. Neil makes very good fact based points above. Here we go. I want all subsidies cut. Get rid of them all to include Federal tax breaks for anyone. That includes People. Oh I know your next question “How is that fair?†It is not fair. Our tax code is all screwed up. We need a new system. I am all for a Flat tax or a Fair Tax or a mix of the two. Not going to argue that here, Today anyway.
What I want is for “renewables†to do is earn my $$ not get it by a redistribution from the Federal Gov’t to them threw the Tax system. They can’t do it yet. Why because if Florida Power could produce energy threw Wind and Solar cheaper than Coal they would do so. If BP could turn corn into Gas cheaper than Oil it would do so. My god man look at the big picture… There are corn fields all over the south where Cotton use to grow. None of it is going to the food market it is all going to the fuel market. Why, Because the FED is paying farms to grow it. They don’t care if it rots on the stalk. Believe me that is happening. Here is not enough of the right equipment in the south to pick all the corn. Why should the farmer care he has already been paid. Here is some free advise…. Buy cotton futures. The price is going to go way up. Less cotton has been grown so the supply will be lower than the demand.
Neil has no special knowledge about the above and is obviously merely repeating right-wing talking points which add up to nonsense, or less than zero. Get smart. Stop being brainswashed. Or not…
Isn’t everyone worried about “foreign” oil? If we want rely on our own resources to fuel our economy then I don’t see a big problem when we help the fuel’s that work! But I also am not against removing all subsidies for all energy. Leave them alone to fend for themselves. Open up some land for drilling, hand out a few Nuclear permits and allow coal plants to run. Allow companies to build windmills off of Martha’s Vineyard, set up some solar panels on the roof of the state capitals, require squad cars to run on ethanol. There, we all are happy!
Agreed. If taxes go down and fuel prices go up, that’s a wash and would make everything more transparent. No more subsidies. Period.
Agreed. Except, sometime to get a leg hold, i.e. a chance in heck, the weaker technologies need help to get going and competitive. That’s a no-brainer, and something this country, as well as others, have always done and mostly successfully. The problem now is we have very powerful entities who have their tentacles around the neck of the government, and its paid bribe takers more than ever, thus strangling the potential for anything better in its infancy.
Rob you can’t have it both ways. Either free up the market and let growth occur or restrict it by causing artificial costs. IE.. taxes, fees, and licences. There is no such a thing as a level playing field. There never has been.
Rob do you think that green energy needs help to get going? What have they been doing for the last twenty years? If it is the end all be all it would be well on its way already. You make it sound like it is in it’s infancy. The reason it still needs help is because it is inferior! Hate to burst your bubble, well maybe not, but ethanol, solar, wind are all old technologies that haven’t come close to the efficiency of fossil fuels. If green energy was the answer, the question would be gone by now. It’s time to cut bait and move on to other ideas. (I think Hydrogen is the way to go…but that’s just me)
You are ready to discredit something based on such black and white thinking? Really? I never said it should or could be a LEVEL playing field. Just more level… not level. You people have such a lack of imagination. Such narrow-mindedness.
During the 19th century European elites saw the rise of industrial capitalism as a chance to stack the cards in their favor, paying slave wages for backbreaking work. Workers organized and formed a proletariat that rejected this lopsided arrangement. They rose up. They formed unions. By the middle of the 20th century, a rough equilibrium had been established between labor and management in the U.S. and other industrialized nations. Three generations of autoworkers earned enough to send their children to college.
Now Detroit is a ghost town.
The uprisings we are witnessing today have their roots in the decline of industrial production that began 60 years ago. As in the early 1800s the economic order has been reshuffled. Ports, factories and the stores that serviced them have shut down. Thanks to globalization, industrial production has been deprofessionalized, shrunken, and outsourced to the more easily manipulated Third World. The result, in Western countries, is a hollowed-out middle class—undermining the foundation of political stability in post-feudal societies.
In the former First World industry was supplanted by the knowledge economy. Rather than bring the global economy in for a soft landing after the collapse of industrial capitalism by using the rising information sector to spread wealth, the ruling classes chose to do what they always do: they exploited the situation for short-term gain, grabbing whatever they could for themselves. During the ’70s and ’80s they broke the unions. (Which is one reason average family income has steadily declined since 1968.) They gouged consumers in the ’90s and ’00s. (Now their credit cards are maxed out.) Now the banks are looting the government.
Now that the bill is due, they want us to pay. But we can’t.
So warming causes snow, and cold temps? Let’s go back in time to March of 2000, almost 11 years ago and see what they were predicting. Shall we?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Wait! I submitted comment too soon, there is more!!!
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.
Not any more, it seems.”
My God! “Big one Elizabeth!” One thing that Rob finally said that I agree. No subsidies. Don’t care if oil, ethanol et al. It all comes out of our pocket no matter what. Sink or swim I say. One question. Did Rob simply have a bad day? Just kidding. We all agree. When will our reps?
A new study finds that when average Americans are presented the federal budget in some detail, most are able to dramatically reduce the budget deficit and resolve the Social Security shortfall. Respondents were presented 31 of the major line items of the discretionary federal budget with a description of each one, the amount budgeted for 2015, and the projected deficit. They were then given a chance to increase or decrease each item as they saw fit and to try to reduce the deficit. On average respondents made net spending cuts of $145.7 billion. The largest cuts included those to defense ($109.4 billion), intelligence ($13.1 billion), military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq ($12.8 billion) and the federal highway system ($4.6 billion)–all of which were cut by majorities. On average respondents increased revenues by $291.6 billion. The largest portion was from income taxes which were raised by an average of $154.8 billion above the levels currently in place. Majorities increased taxes on incomes over $100,000 by 5% or more and increased them by 10% or more for incomes over $500,000.
That study funded by the “Progressive Liberation Front”. The list of 31 items did not include; Education, Dept of Energy, Department of Children family’s and learning (and happy thoughts), they also forgot to show the math on how tax reductions actually bring more money into the treasury. Would love a source there Rob!
99% of what Rob posts comes from buzzflash
I thought it was strange that the Health and Human Services budget was not included in this “study”. You know, the one that is the largest budget item?
Tax reductions “bring more money into the treasury”? Now THAT is what I call fantasy. NOBODY of any credibility has said that or proven that. That is just another wacked out piece of right-wing propaganda that only a hard-core extremist would allow him/herself to believe is true. As for leaving things out of the study – I don’t see it that way. Certain questions were asked and answered by a statisically relevant sample of Americans. Plain and simple. But not simple enough for you guys apparently…
So sorry Neil, for not discussing Global Warming… If it’s such a big deal, why would Dan allow me to post? Ask him, or stop complaining- it makes you appear like a whiny child.
Oh, I don’t know Rob. Maybe because the site is called GLOBAL CLIMATE SCAM DOT COM????? And Dan lets you post here because this is a free country, and you have the freedom of speech. And so do I. Which is why I can express my opinion that things that are discussed here should be relevent to the topic. But as long as you are not personally attacking other posters, or using a lot of profanities Dan is not going to block you. If you think I am whining, and you don’t like it, I say too bad. I will continue to express my opinion when you post things that I consider to be irrelevent.
“In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73%, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes — and 30% of that was paid by people making over $100,000.
After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24%, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue — and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65% of the taxes. How could that be?
The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
High tax rates, which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.
The New York Times reported in 2006: ‘An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.’ Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder — and in the rhetoric of the demagogues.
If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that. And spare us so-called ‘deficit reduction commissions.'”
— economist Thomas Sowell
Neil- I suggested you ask Dan about my posts. And then you answer your own question. I don’t question your right to post here, like you do me, just the manner and tone of it, which is no unlike that of a whiny child at times. You say I’m irrelevant over and over, and I say take it up with Dan. Why persist in the same complaint over and over like a whiny child, when you know the answer? That’s my point. So what’s yours again?
Wow! I think it’s incredible how you can imagine in your wildest dreams that this is somehow relevent to the topic. It is completely meaningless. It is akin to sitting around a bar listening to a bunch of armchair quarterbacks tell how they would have won the game last Sunday! I don’t care if this is true or not, (I’m leaning towards BS on it), this has absolutely nothing to do with AGW, CO2, cold weather caused by warming, or anything remotely similar. Did you post this at ilovemycat.com too?
LOL!
Neil , since I never said it was relevant to the topic.” So where did you get that from, your own feverish imagination? Yes. Dan has the right to admonish me and/or censor me. He hasn’t yet (or didn’t until very recently elsewhere). So WHAT IS YOUR POINT AGAIN?? Oh, that you are peeved like a little child… I see.
Neil, I agree. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I understand that Dallas has Global warming? At least it is the “Packers V Steelers” Packers by 3. Are you in the game? Wonder if Gore will attend? Oops, probably to “Cold.”
Yes, they are experiencing warming caused cooling! Their average temps around this time of year are ~60 degrees F. Tommorrow will be ~40 degrees F. More proof of AGW!!!! As far as who will win the SB, everyone I know wants the Packers to win, so that means they won’t. I’m not into football so I couldn’t care less, but it always seems that whoever my friends want to win…. loses. Sorry, but that is the history, at least from my perspective. I was talking to a guy at a parts store yesterday and I asked him who he liked in the SB, he said he liked Budweiser! I thought that was hillarious!
Oh, and I think Eyeore might be secretly planning to attend. After all, everywhere he goes it gets cold!!!!!!
Yes, if it rains, snows, tornado etc, it will be blamed in global warming. If the Packers lose, it will be Al Gore’s Global Warming that was their demise. Suppose hemorroids are next? Take your pick. They are always right no matter what you to “Ole Alfred.”
Is it GE that Paul always focuses on as the only large corporation that is evil? Here’s a bit of interesting background and history:
What did Ronald Reagan ever do for non-wealthy Americans beyond becoming the symbol of a belief that being born white and in the U.S. makes one exceptional? Indeed, his game-changing accomplishment – using carefully crafted scripts and symbols developed by aides – was bestowing an acceptance of the inevitability of corporate governance.
As most people know, Reagan was a “B” movie star until General Electric hired him to both host a GE television series and become a corporate spokesperson around the nation. Reagan was so successful as a corporate pitchman that a group of extremely conservative and wealthy backers put up the money to position him as a political candidate who would espouse the corporate ethos.
General Electric is so proud of their role in launching Reagan that they are now advertising an Internet tribute to him, “Rendezvous With Destiny: Reagan’s journey from GE to the White House.” In fact GE describes the film as depicting “how he rose from GE brand ambassador to 40th president of the United States.”
Reagan was a President of the Screen actors Guild, and a two term Governor of California. I think the reason you hate him so much is because he was very anti-communist.
No not for that. I really didn’t know that about him. I hated him for his beliefs, his hypocrisy, his lies, and his unintelligence.
You seem to be a “B” Psychologist Major or so you claim. Why didn’t you go into practice by the way? Curious. It is a different GE since the time of Pres. Reagan. The Chairman of the Board of GE did not sit on his right side of President Reagan and tell him how to deal with energy issues that would benefit his company and dictating policy that effects us as well as other americans. In my opinion, it is a direct conflict of interest. Why this has not been raised by the media is beyond my comprehension. Of course we are all lay people and cannot tell the difference can we? Don’t believe me? Ask Gore. Case settled.
Funny how you all try to rationalize everything to suit your needs. Am I defending Obama and his connections to powerful corporations? Nope. Just the opposite. You see, I can criticize a sitting President even when I voted for him and he and I supposedly share the same political party. Your strength and your GREAT weakness is that you will not and cannot do this- EVER.
Do you really believe Reagan was not ruled by, and served the interests of, large corpoarte money? Really? Are you that naive and blinded? You can label it whatever you want (anti-communism and/or pro-business) but you the middle class tax-payer was never taken seriously other than as a vote, and a sucker to be had.
How’s THAT for entertainment Dan? We are lost, and you people just think it’s funny, or absurd. You people are the backbone of the all the absurdity.
Obama a Liberal or Socialist? I wish…
As Liberals have recently criticized, President Obama’s response to unemployment has been to appoint the CEO of GE, an expert at exporting jobs and avoiding corporate taxes, to be his “jobs czar.”
Even more detrimental to those in disproportionate need of work, Obama is going to cut federal assistance for grassroots organizations that aid the impoverished:
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob “Jack” Lew wrote in an opinion article for The New York Times that Obama is willing to cut financing in half, saving $350 million, for community service block grants that cities and towns that allocate to grassroots groups for them to provide basic necessities for poor people.
This is the kind of work Obama did as a community organizer at the outset of his political career, so “this cut is not easy for him,” Lew wrote.
Well, imagine how it feels to black males who are experiencing double-digit unemployment. We don’t imagine that they feel the president’s pain; they feel their own pain.
The chronically destitute of urban and rural America have been left so far behind that they are hardly even considered newsworthy anymore.
President Obama again stressed that he wants to freeze non-war/military spending well into the next president’s tenure:
“That’s why I’ve proposed that we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. Understand what this means. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and bring this spending — domestic discretionary spending — down to the lowest share of our economy since Eisenhower was president. That was a long time ago.”
Interesting isn’t it how CONSERVATIVE the Democrats have become??? 30 years ago Obama would have been considered a fairly conservative Republican. We are moving ever more closer to a Totalitarian/Authoritarian (i.e. Fascist) country run by, and for, the upper 2% wealthy elite. Oh, wait. We’re already there… And guess who’s side you people are on? (ask me and I’ll tell you if you don’t know)
Only because he got his rear end handed to him last November
It’s called CYA. Very simple. A Politician will know what I mean. Talk is cheap. “What I propose,” et al, never “we” I find that interesting. As an alleged Phyc Major what do you read into that? Your IQ is 186 isn’t is? Mine’s only 156 as of 1959 standards. What say you Robbie B?
I must not be very bright becuase I don’t know how to respond to the two posts above. Other than, Paul… we all know what CYA means. It’s one of the oldest anachronisms out there. Anyway, I guess you didn’t notice the quotation marks… indicating that it is coming from someone else, not me. Or do you understand that part? It’s hard to tell from your usual semi-incoherent posts. Obama is doing what any plain Republican Prez would be doing. You all should be planning to vote for him- he’s a conservative in Dem clothing. As for me… I will again start voting for losers like Kucinich, Edwards, Feingold, Wellstone, et al. (yes I know some of these people are dead or discredited, as is oddly the norm for actual Liberals… or not so oddly, eh?). And Mr. Jerk, Obama would be doing what he is doing regardless of what happended in Nov. But of course you probably will never believe that…
You Rightys win either way, every time, and yet you keep on whining and acting like 2 year olds. You will never be happy unless you get your psuedo-lawless Authoritarian Fascist state run by a thuggish and blood-thirsty Dictator. W may be still able to oblige if they hurry up and destroy what’s left of the late- great America.
You never fail me do you.
Reality bites.
Reality will someday bite the hand that feeds you. Called entitlements.
Sore winner.
You would be much more credible if you were to refuse all entitlements that you are either now getting or will do so in the future. But you and I both know the reality of that happening.
Someone stated that global warming causes more snow. This statement indicates shallow and biased thinking. First, more snow fall can be produced as long as some moisture is available. Second, you have to have a cooling event to trigger the snow. The warming can be perfectly within the normal variability, but if the cold front is more persistent than normal, ergo, more snow is produced. This is a weather phenomenon. If the warmer air has less moisture, as over a desert, then there is less snow, right? If the cold front air encounters less moisture, less snow, right? I am sure there are more scenarios that can occur. Warmth is there, but there must also be moisture and a cooling event to trigger the snow. Both are variables. Don’t try to snip out just the warming in the hydrologic cycle and leave out the cooling event.
CPT, welcome to the disagreement site on Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate change, et al. You will find a diverisity of opinions on a multitude of subjects. As I can tell from your post you believe climate change is natural. Am I correct? Let us know.
Diversity of opinions, really Paul? Well…. let’s see…. there’s mine, and then there’s all of yours which is like one. So that makes two opinions. I can count to two thanks to public education.
In all my years which is to numerous to mention, I have never, ever run into a more negative person. I’m serious. Do you ever enjoy life or simply complain. Man, hope your wife is a liberal. She better be. Take care and watch the sun rise in the morning and the sun does not talk back..
Sounds like you are talking about yourself. I started out trying to be helpful and positive. Perhaps it is the unbelievable naivety and stubborness and willful ignorance I confront here that has made me that way? What do you think? Oh… I think I can guess.
My above post was unnecessary, perhaps, but the point I made was pretty accurate wouldn’t you say, Mr. Positive?
I have PMA, you my friend have PMS. Think about it.
Sorry, don’t like to waste my time on drivel. As I’ve said before, I could be persuaded that global warming is unfounded. That it is a Liberal-backed plot, I will of course never believe (although I might be persuaded that it was/is a CIA hoax). But you and this site have not changed my mind, yet. And I’ve also pointed out that since I find you all to be wrong about 99% of everything else we’ve discussed, I would be quite remiss, if not insane, to take your word for global warming as a hoax, or even as false.
Nobody will change your mind on anything. That my friend is a factual statement. Truth is in your statements.
Forget you.
How the Hell Did America Get into This Mess?
In the period following WWII, while corporations and wealthy individuals were still making business-as-usual donations to Republican politicians, a new element — policy institutes — became a factor in the game. These “think tanks” offered the Plutocrats an opportunity to influence conservative ideology at its very source.
Naturally, the think tanks which best advocated small government and lower taxes were rewarded with the most donations. Over time, the think tanks became dependent on a lavish flow of dollars, and the Plutocrats attained effective control over Republican ideology.
One of the more zealous true believers in this ideology was Ronald Reagan. In 1981, Reagan became President promising lower taxes and proclaiming that “government is not the solution to our problems; government IS the problem.” That was the pivotal capitulation. At that point, the Republican party quietly and willingly became a de facto subsidiary of the Plutocrats.
It’s worth noting that, in this process, no conspiracy or collusion was necessary between the various Plutocrats. They were and are united by sharing a common enemy: government regulations and taxes. They all bribe in pitch-perfect unison without even needing to talk to one another.
Money — for the right-thinking think tanks, the loyal candidates, and the can-do Beltway lobbyists — has always been their carrot, but the Plutocrats now have a stick. Tea Party candidates have become the Plutocrats’ enforcers. As we all saw in the 2010 mid-term elections, if any Republican isn’t prepared to drink the Plutocratic Kool-Aid, they can count on being opposed by a massively-financed Tea Party candidate in their next primary.
Thus the Plutocrats’ control over the Republican party has closed like a vise. Respected moderates like Mike Castle were eliminated in the 2010 GOP primaries by Tea Party candidates. Remaining moderates like Olympia Snow are an endangered species. There is little hope that even a universally-admired Republican like Colin Powell could rise up to wrest control from the Plutocrats.
…little hope, but two remaining, puzzling questions: Many of the surviving Congressional Republicans are people of principle; how were they seduced into adopting the Plutocrats’ agenda? Next, how did these hijacked Republican standard-bearers then persuade millions of lower-income Americans to vote for the Plutocrats’s agenda and against their own interests?
It required a kind of alchemy. If that sounds medieval, it’s apt. The alchemy in this case is Libertarianism, a somewhat obscure but persistent political philosophy. Like the classic alchemist’s dream of turning lead into gold, it has never proven workable but has always attracted passionate believers.
Suggest you go back to your original school and find that fine teacher that taught you. He she did a hell of a job. You from Madison??
Wasn’t a heshe, that I know of. I am PROUD of my fellow citizens from Madison. They are defending what once made America great: Their status as hard-working middle class.
Average compensation for public workers is higher because the jobs they do — such as teaching — require a relatively high level of education, and a higher education is one of the main factors that drives wages up, said Ethan Pollack, a senior policy analyst.
Yet the typical Wisconsin public sector employee with a bachelor’s degree makes less than $62,000, compared to more than $82,000 in the private sector, Pollack said.
Public employee groups such as teachers have made concessions on wages, over the years, in order to keep solid benefits. Now politicians are focusing on those benefits as they look for spending cuts.
So do architects, engineers etc, require a “high level” of education but thousands are unemployed. Oh, that’s right, they should be quaranteed employment and pension benefits and COLA and free health care with nothing out of pocket, correct? Forgot, they are not members of a union and their not teachers. Get with real life as it exists away from the entitlement mentality.
The theory of anthropogenic global warming rests solely on computer-model projections into the future. These projections amount to assumptions regarding possible future climate states that they assume – on average – will be warmer to much warmer. Let’s just remember for one moment that we are dealing with words and phrases like ‘assumptions’, ‘theories’, ‘predictions’, ‘possibilities’, ‘maybe’, ‘likely’, ‘more than likely’, ‘could be’, etc.etc. Whenever dealing with the unknown – one is dealing with an infinite number of possibilities and variables that can result either way.
My argument is this: Computer-models are only as accurate as the assumptions that get programmed into them. Even the IPCC itself, a political body as opposed to a scientific entity, has very honestly admitted that 80% of the factors driving climate are not well understood. In reality, this paves the way for enormous bias to enter the modelling world. In other words, believing something to be true and knowing it to be true are often world’s apart! In addition, I would argue that forming policy and regulating the economy based upon such scientific speculation is both profoundly unwise and ignorant.
Secondly, from a geological and historical perspective, there have been many warmer periods in earth’s staggeringly long history than at present. These include, the Eyptian warming, Minoan warming, Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period – being the most recent we know about! Temperatures in each of these periods have been as warm to much warmer than today – all BEFORE industrialisation. This quite clearly shows that current temperatures are well within ‘natural variability’ and certainly nothing to worry about.
Thirdly, in the ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT – EVERYTHING IS AN EMERGENCY! Why else would they exist? Much of environmentalism stems out of do-goodery and self-righteousness. Even tackling pollution, which is a separate issue from climate-change, involves people taking steps to make themselves feel better about the world in which they live. Tackling pollution in many respects – is a noble cause and deserves a certain amount of praise and respect. But once again, IN REALITY, how much of this do-goodery really matters in the wider context of climate change. Do we honestly believe that a planet 4.5 BILLION years old is going to alter in whatever way because us humans have taken some small steps to ‘becoming greener and cleaner’. Personally, I think that our planet is NOT FRAGILE; it’s as tough as an old boot; if anything the fragility lies within us!
Fourthly, when talking about becoming ‘Carbon-free’ or ‘Carbon Neutral’ or reducing our ‘Carbon Footprint’ let’s just bear in mind that from a scienitifc viewpoint – what is really being talked about is CARBON DIOXIDE. Once again, IN REALITY, CO2 is a naturally-occurring trace gas in the atmosphere. It is vital in photosythesis and is the basis of the planetary food chain. It is certainly NOT a pollutant; it is an airborne benefical fertiliser; a nutrient upon which all plant life depends. The argument is whether us humans have super-imposed our excessive carbon dioxide emissions upon the existing natural balance of the climate system – thereby altering it’s natural chemistry leading to possible dangerous global warming at some point in the near and distant future. Once again, let’s take account of what CO2 is by it’s own natural constitiution and nature – IN A NUTSHELL – CO2 is LIFE!
The last point I wish to emphasise is the fact that the climate system is governed by thousands of factors, most of which are not well understood. Why single out such a minor trace gas as CO2 when clearly there are far more powerful and influential factors at play in the natural system?. For example, Professor Freeman Dyson at the Advanced Studies of Princeton University emphasises the significant role of the Earth’s vegetation and soil with respect to the climate. This is just one important area. Others include, the role of the Sun (being the main heat source), the vast oceans which cover over 70% of the Earth’s surface (and the natural factors which determine the storage and release of CO2 back into the atmosphere), water-vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas comprising 98% of the atmosphere, the important role of low-level clouds which is thought to be a major factor in determining the natural variation of climate temperatures (P.S. Significantly, computer-models are unable to replicate cloud-formation and coverage – which again – injects bias into model). Furthermore, cosmic-rays and their presumed influence in the formation of cloud-development is also a beckoning factor which is not particularly well understood in terms of the Science. These are, but a few of the many factors, which make up the climate-system. More importantly, the inter-relationships between all of these elements of the natural world and how they interact at any given point to determine climate – yet again – poses a big questionmark in terms of the Science. In truth, one could reasonanly argue that in so many respects our knowledge and understanding of natural processes and the interactions of such processes in the real world – are somewhat primitive and rudimentary.
Computer-models, no matter how sophisticated – ultimately reside in the VIRTUAL WORLD for two important reasons. Firstly, they make seemingly educated presumptions off the back of incomplete scientific knowledge. This is tantamount to cherry-picking information that supports a point of view, whilst disregarding both known and unknown information that either contradicts it or is not sufficently grasped in terms of the Science to begin with. Secondly, computer-models are told what to think from the off-set – giving the impression that the knowledge programmed into them is COMPLETELY CORRECT and the means with which that knowledge is applied and interpreted is also adequate to counter any uncertainty that may or may not exist! In truth, computer-models have many real-world shortcomings because they cannot duplicate or mimic reality in real-life time with random occurrence at any possible moment P.S. computer-models require information to attempt to understand the natural forcings and processes at work in the climate system; the only drawback to this is the fact that REALITY is fundamentally chaotic following no specific pattern of behaviour. This renders computer-models virtually useless for predicting CLIMATE. However, I would argue that computer-models are a valuable scientific tool to assist Scientists in their daily calculations and workings, but nothing more than this. PREDICITONS/PROJECTIONS – DO NOT amount to SCIENTIFIC PROOF; they offer a multitude of theoretical insights into the positives and negatives that may or may not result on any given topic or issue.
From my point of view, I would argue that one cannot arrive at a plausible conclusion about the elements which drive climate unless a complete understanding of NATURE and the UNIVERESE exist to begin with. Anything short of this understanding is ultimately BIASED because it can only presume on the basis of it’s own self-awarded verdict – that a sufficient understanding of all natural and solar processes exists from the off-set – making the Political conclusions seem entirely justified.
Wow – that’s a long comment. Please try to be more succinct in future comments.
Whew!
About 4 years ago I decided to test the “CO2 is causing Global Warming” theory practically (when it was still called Global warming). I left three sealed fish tanks of exactly the same volume in the sun for almost 8 hours. Fish Tank #1 contained plain air, the second had CO2 from an extinguisher, the third had a lantern(burning Methylated spirits, but died rather quickly after sucking the cellophane down)
Not surprisingly, the temperatures were the same in all three fish tanks throughout the 8 hours.
I was not surprised by the results because my geology Professors all seemed unconvinced that man’s CO2 input could cause a global catastrophe. Plus, the colossal changes in CO2 levels that persisted since the Cambrian makes current CO2 levels seem like a joke. Global temperatures have been virtually unaffected by CO2 levels for the last 500 million years, the current situation is no different.
GW is like a volcano. Believing that we can cause global warming is like thinking we can make volcanoes angry. And there is alway a high priest (Al Gore) ready to help you appease the volcano as long as you give him authority over the aspects of your life.
Nice.