It might be real, but the Left’s “solutions” to it are a fantasy.
7 thoughts on “Global Warming”
Yesterday I finished shoveling 17.5 inches of snow to get my car out (our previous snow record was 13.4 inches), and spent Thursday night sleeping in an igloo in the back yard while the temperature dropped to -2 F, tying our all-time record, while nearby areas saw -11 F. The igloo has been in the yard for two weeks, and belatedly I realized I should have built it on a trailer so it would be a mobile home.
I remember the days when Kentuckians didn’t sleep in igloos in sub-zero temperatures, but those days are long gone. I blame a lack of global warming combined with a Maunder or Dalton minimum.
I think anthropomorphic global warming is contrived, and certainly the argument presented in the referenced article is compelling with regards to accepting the science as a lever to support your argument and ignoring the science that proves your solutions won’t produce the desired results.
Here is a great interview with Dr. Eric Karlstrom who does a great job outlining the relatively modern history of climate science and how AGW folks ignore the classical scientific method:
I also seem to recall that recently the Google X guys concluded much the same — that renewables are essentially a dead end. Gotta think bigger and nuclear-er.
The whole thing fails on every count.
1) We have no control over it
2) Even if we did, warming would be a good thing, not bad
3) Even if we did and it weren’t, it would be impossible to get everyone on board to do anything significant about it
4) Even if we did and it weren’t and we could get everyone on board, the “cures” via environmentally disastrous wind farms and solar installations
a) cannot ever come close to satisfying our energy appetite
b) are worse than the disease
This brouhaha is beyond insane. I feel like I would if I suddenly woke up one day, and found myself surrounded by primitives readying a human sacrifice to the Rain Gods.
Don’t be giving them any ideas now! You know damned well that we’d be the sacrifices!
They may try but more of us have guns. Their attempt wouldn’t end well…for them at least.
Bart:
Even if all the other objections were overcome (even “cure worse than disease” — which is related to what follows) it fails because the plan to empower the United Nations, via the IPCC, to measure progress and negotiate the treaties, caps, trading markets, and taxes.
You remember the UN, right? The body that has been attempting to solve the problem of stateless-person refugees after WWII — like Palestinians — for the past sixty years? The body charged with eliminating malaria? The people who manage sanctions against rogue states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who might otherwise get nuclear weapons and missile technology? THOSE GUYS?
Yesterday I finished shoveling 17.5 inches of snow to get my car out (our previous snow record was 13.4 inches), and spent Thursday night sleeping in an igloo in the back yard while the temperature dropped to -2 F, tying our all-time record, while nearby areas saw -11 F. The igloo has been in the yard for two weeks, and belatedly I realized I should have built it on a trailer so it would be a mobile home.
I remember the days when Kentuckians didn’t sleep in igloos in sub-zero temperatures, but those days are long gone. I blame a lack of global warming combined with a Maunder or Dalton minimum.
I think anthropomorphic global warming is contrived, and certainly the argument presented in the referenced article is compelling with regards to accepting the science as a lever to support your argument and ignoring the science that proves your solutions won’t produce the desired results.
Here is a great interview with Dr. Eric Karlstrom who does a great job outlining the relatively modern history of climate science and how AGW folks ignore the classical scientific method:
http://www.themindrenewed.com/topics/climate-change/174-int012
I also seem to recall that recently the Google X guys concluded much the same — that renewables are essentially a dead end. Gotta think bigger and nuclear-er.
The whole thing fails on every count.
1) We have no control over it
2) Even if we did, warming would be a good thing, not bad
3) Even if we did and it weren’t, it would be impossible to get everyone on board to do anything significant about it
4) Even if we did and it weren’t and we could get everyone on board, the “cures” via environmentally disastrous wind farms and solar installations
a) cannot ever come close to satisfying our energy appetite
b) are worse than the disease
This brouhaha is beyond insane. I feel like I would if I suddenly woke up one day, and found myself surrounded by primitives readying a human sacrifice to the Rain Gods.
Don’t be giving them any ideas now! You know damned well that we’d be the sacrifices!
They may try but more of us have guns. Their attempt wouldn’t end well…for them at least.
Bart:
Even if all the other objections were overcome (even “cure worse than disease” — which is related to what follows) it fails because the plan to empower the United Nations, via the IPCC, to measure progress and negotiate the treaties, caps, trading markets, and taxes.
You remember the UN, right? The body that has been attempting to solve the problem of stateless-person refugees after WWII — like Palestinians — for the past sixty years? The body charged with eliminating malaria? The people who manage sanctions against rogue states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who might otherwise get nuclear weapons and missile technology? THOSE GUYS?