AGW Update: A morning with the MSM

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, March 7. 2013

AGW Update: A morning with the MSM

Now this is amusing.

Of course, since the subject is global warming, I suppose I wax redundant.

As you know, every storm, drought, plague, meteor shower, volcanic eruption and earthquakian upheaval is because of your neighbor's SUV. Curse his ragged hide.

This is especially true with large storms, the perfect example of which would be Superstorm Sandy, she of the Category 1 level — the lowest hurricane level — with some meteorologists claiming it had dropped down to Tropical Storm level by the time it actually hit land.

The only reason New York City had all the flooding was because Sandy (1) hit at high tide, (2) hit right as there was an extra-large low pressure area out to sea, allowing the tide to rise even higher than normal, and (3) the fact that NYC had been hit by two storms even larger than Sandy in the previous 100 years, both times the sea wall had been breached with the resultant massive flooding, yet they never did anything about it.

In the meantime, how much money has NYC spent on 'green' measures because of the peril of global warming? True; it, too, is supposed to breach the sea walls, but over the course of a century — not the two hours it took Sandy.

This week's example of global warming run amok was Snowquester, the largest, meanest, baddest storm that global warming run amok has yet produced!

Washington DC shuts down ahead of winter snow storm

So did all the schools. The AGW advocates, however, were thrilled, and were halfway through writing their next article citing Snowquester as just a sign of things to come when the bad news struck.

Which brings us to this morning's headlines.

Sadly, Snowquester was not to be.

Snow fail: Predictions almost all wrong this time around

'Snowquester' doesn't pan out in DC

Chicago native Kaitlynn Scannell, 23, said she was surprised at the early decision to close schools.

"I think it’s too warm for the storm to stick," she said.

And there's your ultimate example of global warming run amok:

Warm snow.

Then I glance around the page and notice this:

What the article doesn't mention is that the popular Indonesian volcano is probably belching more CO2 into the atmosphere every half-hour than mankind has over its entire existence.

Then I notice this:

Ancient arctic camel fossils link to modern desert breed

Wait, how can this be? A warm-blooded mammal up in the Arctic?

Without any coal plants or your neighbor's SUV around?

Impossible, I say! As any AGW advocate will tell you, the current slow rise in temperature is a planetary first.

And you can just bet that the lamestream media really doesn't see the irony when it posts a headline like this:

Hill hearing on global warming cancelled by D.C. snowstorm

Or, represented graphically:

Thank you, MSM, for another wonderfully entertaining morning.

Posted by Dr. Mercury in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 17:10 | Comments (110)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

AlGore is rolling over in his...something. Extra-Large PJs?

Even Queen Victoria would be amused.

#1 Sam L. on 2013-03-07 19:58

Dr. Mercury: What the article doesn't mention is that the popular Indonesian volcano is probably belching more CO2 into the atmosphere every half-hour than mankind has over its entire existence.

Um, no. Not even within several orders of magnitude. However, volcanoes do emit large quantities of aerosols, which tend to cool the planet.

#2 Zachriel on 2013-03-07 20:02

I've read in more than one source that when Mt. Pinatubu in the Philippines (a fairly dirty volcano by today's standards) blew its stack back in '91, it emitted as much CO2 in twenty seconds as the entirety of mankind. Sounds about right to me. Ever held a tailpipe up against a spewing volcano? There's quite a difference in scale.

As for it cooling down the planet -- but wait! What about that "greenhouse effect" and all that trapped heat and gasses and stuff?

Gosh, Zach, it's almost like the science is 'unsettled' or somethin'!

#2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-07 20:13

Dr. Mercury: I've read in more than one source that when Mt. Pinatubu in the Philippines (a fairly dirty volcano by today's standards) blew its stack back in '91, it emitted as much CO2 in twenty seconds as the entirety of mankind.

What you read was wrong. The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted about 0.05 gigatons of CO2. All volcanoes on Earth, in a typical year, emit about 0.2 gigatons of CO2. Human emit about 35 gigatons of CO2 per year, a hundred times as much.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/about/hazard/gas/

Dr. Mercury: As for it cooling down the planet -- but wait! What about that "greenhouse effect" and all that trapped heat and gasses and stuff?

As we said, volcanoes emit large quantities of aerosols, which have a relatively short term cooling effect. A famous example is the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815, which resulted in the Year Without a Summer. (The "wet, ungenial summer" kept Byron and his friends indoors telling scary stories.) Another is the Laki volcanic eruption in 1783, which Benjamin Franklin rightly surmised as the cause of the cool summer the following year. The Mount Pinatubo eruption brought about an estimated ¼°C cooling, and provided a natural experiment of climate sensitivity.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-07 20:44

"usgs.gov"

Sorry. Respectable and credentialed sites only, please.

#2.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-07 20:46

The U.S. Geological Survey is certainly an authoritative source, and the original scientific papers are listed at the bottom of the page.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/about/hazard/gas/

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-07 20:57

You forgot the "respectable" part. That means any site with the word ".gov" on the end doesn't qualify.

Frankly, it was the USGS that really disappointed me. When NASA, then NOAA, then Fish & Wildlife, then all the rest jumped on board, I wasn't surprised. Somehow, just because it's more 'earthy', I expected more out of the USGS. Of course, I also expected Nat'l Geographic to stay above the fray, but t'wasn't so.

Oyster Herpes: Latest Symptom of Global Warming?

Aren't you just the slightest bit embarrassed by this stuff?

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-07 21:07

Dr. Mercury: You forgot the "respectable" part.

Handwaving is not an argument. You might also read, Gerlach, Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 2011: "Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities."

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 08:04

Well, by your logic, you should be advocating that we nuke all the inactive volcanoes in the world to fire them up in order to slow down global warming run amok, no? As you'll tell us, we're already past the point where merely reducing our CO2 output will have any real effect, therefore more active measures are called for. If one Pinatubo raised it a quarter degree, then it looks like about a dozen of them should do the trick.

Plus, we'll get some really pretty sunsets.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 08:11

Dr. Mercury: Well, by your logic, you should be advocating that we nuke all the inactive volcanoes in the world to fire them up in order to slow down global warming run amok, no?

Not only doesn't that make sense, but polluting the atmosphere is not a reasonable solution to climate change. The idea is to make life better, not worse.

Dr. Mercury: As you'll tell us, we're already past the point where merely reducing our CO2 output will have any real effect, therefore more active measures are called for.

Well, some climate change is inevitable. The concept is to minimize the environmental damage for the least cost.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 08:42

Now, wait a sec. First, you say volcanoes cool down the planet, but now we can't use them to effectively fight global warming? As for the dust they'll kick up, it's all organic, unlike smog and smoke, so we should be able to adapt.

Looked at another way, what would you rather have -- dusty air or dirt reaching the point of spontaneous combustion? Personally, I think sneezing is better than melting.

And stay tuned for my next AGW article. Everything BOTH sides have been told is wrong, wrong, wrong!

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 09:00

Dr. Mercury: Now, wait a sec. First, you say volcanoes cool down the planet, but now we can't use them to effectively fight global warming? As for the dust they'll kick up, it's all organic, unlike smog and smoke, so we should be able to adapt.

Fire is organic. Drowning is organic. Dying is organic. You don't seem to be presenting a coherent argument.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 09:05

Volcano smoke is organic, smog is not. Seems pretty coherent to me!

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 09:38

Just out from Science.

Marcott et al., A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science 2013: "Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time."
http://climatedesk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marcott-A-1000.jpg

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 09:02

And only the testing methodology and probabilities of data presented as representative data being representative, are missing from the comment, Zach.

--oh well, maybe Ug and Grunt placed their recording thermometers near the cook fires, as IPCC did in urban asphalt jungles, so that the readings would be normalized across eons, that is, always from the hottest places possible without losing 100% of ''i'm not crooked, just stupid'' deniability (as they would've had they installed the monitors in say, a roasting mammoth haunch or a Boeing 747 engine exhaust).

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 11:56

We should be thanking our caveman forebears for doing their part to prevent global warming run amok. You know how a cow's methane is 21 times worse than CO2?

Now imagine what a mammoth's methane output would be like.

It'd be -- dare I say it -- mammoth!

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:01

Precisely why they are considered ex-stinked. And precisely why the ''mammoth fart'' survives phenomenologically only in the vestigial argot, such as that oft spoken when consuming the legume family of plants.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 12:13

Now hold a second there, fella. You bitch and moan endlessly about the fact that 'phonetic' isn't spelled phonetically, then you use the word 'phenomenologically' without a qualm?

Do you have standards or not?

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:18

Qualm down, Doc. Let me illustrate Lincolnesquely, with a homespunnishing story:

Maitre D to guy, "Sir, do you have a reservation?"

Guy to Maitre D, "Yes, but I'll try to overcome it."

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 12:57

Customer: Waiter! What's this fly doing in my soup?

Waiter: I believe that's the backstroke, sir.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:59

buddy larsen: And only the testing methodology and probabilities of data presented as representative data being representative, are missing from the comment

We cited the study, which measured chemical changes in fossilized foraminifera. It's an independent check of what other scientists have determined by other means.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 12:11

--and here, Zach, is where your cell runs up onto the sharp shoals of blowback, as the local probability is that a strong majority of the readers here (or anyplace else not posing politics as science) will --based on experience --assume the authors of the control features on the study are under political mandate to exploit the wobbles in such areas as are proof to identification by the laity.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 12:29

maybe Ug and Grunt placed their recording thermometers near the cook fires

Funny you should mention that. Way back in the day when I built my first weather station, I placed the anemometer, thermometer and hydrometer on the chimney of my parents house at the recommended height of 12 feet above the vent.

Remember, I was a kid then so I didn't recognize why temp and humidity measurements fluctuated so much and why I had a constant wind speed of 5 mph. I thought the instruments were broken. I asked my science teacher about it and he came over, looked at it and then launched into an explanation about proper placement of instruments, etc.

Thinking back on it, that was an example of how much of the current data is corrupted.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 12:14

Dig this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct7S_vFB8B4

--and no telling WHAT you'd find on a search of [ anthony watts ] (this hit is from a search on [climate data misplaced thermometers].

Watts surveyed 865 of 1200 stations and found 90% did not meet the National Weather Service's criteria for generating sound data for any conditions other than the immediate surrounding several meters.

(Doc, and Tom, a 'meter' is a little longer than a 'yard' --not a whole bunch longer, but not the same, nor shorter, so, forced play, 'longer' --but "...not a whole bunch longer", to quote an expert)

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 13:15

A "meter" is a round dial with numbers on it. You meant "metre".

Maybe it wasn't phonetic enough. :/

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 13:20

No, i meant to say that a round dial with numbers on it is longer than a very short front yard.
Anyway the Italian Antidefamation League called and wants to know more about this 'garlic' language that they said to tell you is hard to pronounce wearing concrete galoshes

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 13:34

If this is really not one young person earnestly studying science at a modest community college somewhere, trying to improve his debating skills in a non-peer environment, but a group of some sort, collaborating on answers all the worse. The skill at articulating scientific arguments are not improving. It's not worth the effort to read. I've collaborated with Scientists and Engineers - the sort that hold pattens and author sections in Perry's -for 25 years and in all that time, no one has ever used "um, no" as the argument. "Um, no" is shorthand for I am right, you are wrong, I can't believe I have to condescend to a reply. The readers here, which you unskillfully put on the defensive at the get go with "um, no", are trying to point out to you that your technical content, the functional construct of your arguments and your delivery all need major improve if you are ever to be persuasive. It's a form of kindness. I hope you take the constructive criticism to heart. This is the last bit I'll give you. At some point they will give up too, if you don't improve. I wish you well.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 Karen on 2013-03-08 12:15

oops, Improvement. - miss placed my reading glasses today.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 Karen on 2013-03-08 12:21

The real question is can you speak Garlic because apparently that's the only language Buddy Larsen speaks.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 12:26

That's a pretty cruel thing for you to say about one of our oldest members. Buddy speaks many, many languages.

Intelligibility and comprehension, of course, are entirely different matters.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:32

Very nicely put.

Zach's problem, as I see it, is that he's used to arguing with lefties. He doesn't quite 'get' that the rules change on a righty site. For example, he uses known-to-be-in-the-bag AGW sites to support his AGW arguments, and wildly-left political sites like the Puffington Host to support political claims.

Worse, he frequently uses the word "scientists", like that's supposed to mean something. On righty sites, Zach, the word "scientist" is somewhere below "used car salesman" on the Trust Meter.

He is, however, fairly polite about it all, which is a far cry from the usual 'raving liberal' fare, and for that I give his comments the credence they deserve. My usual complaint is that he only wants to talk about AGW in these threads, whereas my AGW articles are usually more about the culture than the actual event.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:30

Dr. Mercury: Worse, he frequently uses the word "scientists", like that's supposed to mean something.

It's not the scientists that mean something, but the science.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 12:37

the word "scientist" is somewhere below "used car salesman" on the Trust Meter.

Now wait just a darn minute - I'm a scientist - ok, well a numbers scientist, but still a scientist.

And I'll have you know that I don't sell used cars.'

Harrumph..

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 12:45

Well, you're in good company, because "Numbers guy" is also near the bottom of the list.

I believe it's right above 'Backwater blogger'. :)

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:51

Dr M,
I too have some thoughts on throwing around the word "scientists" in a discussion. I would not use the words "scientists say" in a debate. It comes across like "I'm right because Mom says so". Put another way it is an admission that you don't have the scientific chops to hold the ground of your own argument.

Nickie Ferrante speaks Garlic (sic).

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1 Karen on 2013-03-08 15:41

Karen - Hold on a sec, have to check the latest news.

Scientists Prove Bigfoot Exists From DNA

You were saying?

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 15:56

The DeNovo Scientific Journal?

BBBBAAWWWAAHHHHHAAAAA!!!!!

~~ cough - cough ~~ sputter ~~ gag ~~

I should know better that to look at bad jokes while drinking Diet Pepsi.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 16:03

Awesome! I'll take one Uncle Beazley, but only if it's a Tea Cup Uncle Beazley.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.2 Karen on 2013-03-09 10:34

And a very sneaky obscure cultural reference that was too.

Well done. :>)

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1.2 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 15:57

You forgot to mention the other greenhouse gases that get emitted...some w/ much higher warming potential than CO2. Probably just an oversight and not you cherry picking data again.

Oh wait, you wrote, "The Mount Pinatubo eruption brought about an estimated ¼°C cooling, and provided a natural experiment of climate sensitivity."

Then why 20 years later are they still getting the aerosol forcing values wrong?

#2.2 DrTorch on 2013-03-08 08:00

DrTorch: You forgot to mention the other greenhouse gases that get emitted...some w/ much higher warming potential than CO2.

We responded to the specific, and erroneous, claim. Did you have a specific claim to make about volcanic emissions?
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/about/hazard/gas/

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 08:09

Of course you did Zac. Might be worth your while to look up the term "cherry picking", since it's not the first time you've been caught.

#2.2.1.1 DrTorch on 2013-03-08 09:09

In other words, you can't answer the simple question. Here's the exchange.

Dr. Mercury: What the article doesn't mention is that the popular Indonesian volcano is probably belching more CO2 into the atmosphere every half-hour than mankind has over its entire existence.

Zachriel: Um, no. Not even within several orders of magnitude. However, volcanoes do emit large quantities of aerosols, which tend to cool the planet.

And we provided citations to support our position. In what way are we cherry-picking? While that doesn't salvage the original claim, what volcanic emissions do you feel are relevant?

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 09:29

"Cherry-picking" is the wrong term. "Nitpicking to the point of off-topicness" would be closer.

In this case, I never said the Indonesian volcano would raise the world temp, but that's the direction you headed.

In my 'Wee World' post the other day, Cap'n Tom went off on a similar tangent claiming that not all of the 'horns' I presented were actually, by strict definition, "horns".

Both of you were nitpicking sheerly for nitpicking's sake. That's not only a waste of everyone's time, but it's rude, uncultured and beneath the level of decorum this site tries to maintain.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 09:44

Dr. Mercury: In this case, I never said the Indonesian volcano would raise the world temp, but that's the direction you headed.

No, you clearly intended to minimize the role of CO2 on climate by pointing out that volcanic eruptions emit far more than humans. The premise was false, so the argument failed.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 09:54

The role of other compounds' role as greenhouse gases has been described in terms of 'CO2 equivalents'. It's entirely possible that this is what Dr Hg was referring to, even if he didn't specify it.

By ignoring the quantities of other gases coming from volcanos, in particular relative to those generated by humans, you avoided addressing critical information.

You may have addressed the specific point being made, but you took that to an unfounded conclusion b/c you cherry picked what information you addressed.

In professional science, this is referred to as "fraud".

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 DrTorch on 2013-03-08 10:09

DrTorch: By ignoring the quantities of other gases coming from volcanos, in particular relative to those generated by humans, you avoided addressing critical information.

We didn't ignore it. We asked for specifics twice.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 10:40

Dr. Mercury: In this case, I never said the Indonesian volcano would raise the world temp, but that's the direction you headed.

No, you clearly intended to minimize the role of anthropogenic CO2 on climate by pointing out that volcanic eruptions emit far more than humans. The premise was false, so the argument failed.

Dr. Mercury: That's not only a waste of everyone's time, but it's rude, uncultured and beneath the level of decorum this site tries to maintain.

Sorry you feel that way. You made a false statement, one that is often repeated. We felt it was worth correcting. Don't you think it is better to know?

#2.2.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 10:00

No, because as soon as I admitted volcanic eruptions cooled, rather than warmed, the planet and wanted to use this new knowledge to fight global warming, I got shot down on that end, too.

The reason this falls under the heading of off-topic nitpickiness is because this post isn't about global warming, it's about the media.

My last post on the subject, about the AGW 'godfather' who had switched sides, evoked the same reaction from you. The article's talking about a guy and all you can do is use the word "troposphere" over and over again. Same general subject, but off-topic as far as the actual post goes.

The reason the term 'cherry-picking' was used is because your only response to the entire MSM debacle was to focus on one tiny squib from the post, turning what was a mere implication on my part into a stated fact that you could then argue. The real issue here is the MSM and its hunger for further proof that global warming is already wreaking havoc amongst the masses.

Seriously, calling a Category 1 hurricane a 'superstorm' doesn't embarrass you at all?

#2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 10:11

Dr. Mercury: No, because as soon as I admitted volcanic eruptions cooled, rather than warmed, the planet and wanted to use this new knowledge to fight global warming, I got shot down on that end, too.

Using nuclear devices to reactivate volcanoes in order to spew uncontrollable quantities of toxic aerosols into the atmosphere didn't seem to be a serious proposal.

Dr. Mercury: The reason this falls under the heading of off-topic nitpickiness is because this post isn't about global warming, it's about the media.

You said, "What the article doesn't mention is that the popular Indonesian volcano is probably belching more CO2 into the atmosphere every half-hour than mankind has over its entire existence." Perhaps they didn't mention it because it wasn't true.

You may think it's a trivial point. That's fine. You can ignore our nitpicks, or simply admit to them and move on.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 10:47

Not sure what you mean by "ignoring". Haven't I been answering you? It's certainly more than you deserve. As noted, you're not even on-topic.

On top of that, have you ever noticed how I'm supposed to answer all of your questions, but you tend to ignore mine? For the third time, don't things like calling a Category 1 hurricane a 'superstorm' embarrass you somewhat?

How about the EPA declaring your breath a toxic gas?

The point you're missing is that it doesn't make any difference how much, or how little, CO2 Mt. Pinatubo blew into the atmosphere. The subject of global warming deals in thousand-year cycles. Individual events are meaningless, unless they're really spectacular, like the 'supervolcanoes' of yore, which really might have impacted the climate -- but even then not for very long by geologic standards.

And besides, wait'll you read my next AGW piece. As I noted earlier, we're BOTH wrong on the issue.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 11:50

Dr. Mercury: How about the EPA declaring your breath a toxic gas?

Animal respiration is carbon neutral.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 11:58

I cut my toenails today.

I blame Global Warming.

Or Canada.

#3 Tom Francis on 2013-03-07 20:46

just blame global warming on Canada, no more having to wonder who to blame...

In other news, it was predicted back in 1986 that global warming would cause the next ice age, with temperatures in most of north America and Europe dropping to about -20C on average over the year, by 1995, the process becoming irreversible by 1990.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsRD4HPtH0

The guilty: the big bad artificial fertiliser industry, who suppress scientific knowledge that shows that only dumping billions of tons of ground rock over the world's forests in order to "remineralise the soil", and doing so prior to 1990, will prevent catastrophe.

#3.1 J.T. Wenting on 2013-03-07 23:22

Speaking of disappearing acts being blamed on "global warming", I'm half watching a show on H2 where they are exploring old cities that have disappeared throughout history. One was a city in the Sub-Sahara which disappeared because the aquifer it was sitting on shrank due to drought leaving a huge hole which collapsed and swallowed the entire city.

And other similar disasters - very interesting.

#4 Tom Francis on 2013-03-07 20:54

Sounds interesting. Name? Maybe it's on Netflix.

#4.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-07 20:56

I blame global warming for the 36 degree morning temp here in northwest Fl.

#5 Mark on 2013-03-07 22:18

Global Warming -- is there anything it can't do?!

Cooler places will warm up, and warmer places, like our Florida, will cool down.

It's like some kind of Miracle Drug!

#6 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-07 22:24

That reminds me of the song hit from the 70s or 80s, ''I believe in Miracles''. Except they were actually saying "I Believe in Merkles". I had thought at the time that it was just a harmless pop song. Then Angela Merkel was elected --in Germany !

I know, i know, it sounds nutty that when the future finally got predicted, it was by a pop singer with diction issues.

Nutty, but not un pretzel dented. There is this UN climate committee, the IPCC, which spent decades and billion$ fabricating false evidence when clearly it must've had actual evidence, because, if it didn't, why on earth go to the trouble to try to convince the world it DID have real actual evidence?

So they MUST've had that evidence --so why gin up the huge edifice of bogosity --why not just say out what it is that convinced THEM, before tyhey must've just goofily pranked us with that report.

But what if they did NOT have evidence (and that's the only condition that makes sense of the deliberately false report that got so utterly busted)?

Then, all the new stuff Zach is on about, where was all that a few years ago, when it would've negated any opportunity to engage a conspiracy that ultimately became the massive, world-historical Climategate Scandal?

The perversity double whammy is like, say you're a prosecuter, and the defendant has already confessed, and witnesses have all agreed to the confession, yet you insist on bringing it to trial anyway, and in court you ignore the airtight case you already have signed sealed delivered to hand, and instead lead the jury off into a completely made-up long, complex hypothetical that you hope will circumstantially derive enough plausibility to get the jury to convict.

"Well," you will say because it is the only thing you CAN say, "...juries are very fickle and unpredictable, so I had to dramatize the case!"

And that would be a true statement, but like all of Obama's true statements, it is just the show card and not the hole card --and the lie here would be, that you ever needed the jury (that problematical jury) in the first place.

IOW, since there's no question that morally as well as strategically the truth is an ace in the hole, and you had that ace in the hole, dealt fair n square above board.

But then, totally inexplicably, you took a great risk to slip the ace up your sleeve, in favor of that deuce of clubs you had hiding there.

AND, the show-stopper is, while executing the slight-of-hand, you got caught!

You cheated on a hand you must have known you had won, and then you got caught doing it.

...and THAT is the Merkle!

#6.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 00:53

It's nice to see those psychotropic drugs finally doing some good.

As far as this goes:

"because, if it didn't, why on earth go to the trouble to try to convince the world it DID have real actual evidence?"

"So they MUST've had that evidence"

Exactly. It's the same way you can tell when someone's telling the truth, because their story is so far-fetched that no one would ever dream of using it in a lie.

Thanks for settling things.

#6.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 01:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOl4oeHZnBk

#6.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 01:12

I love 2-chord songs.

They're so easy to dance to.

#6.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 01:17

--well, THAT version is danceable. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's epic cover is a good eel more ponderous.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 01:37

Not if you play it at 78.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 01:39

Jeeeez --don't play it backwards whatEVER you do --you hear this horrible growling voice repeating and reeree peating "it is forty five years from now and you are still just as stupid"

--as if i need some jerk-ass demon to tell me THAT!

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 01:51

Well, it depends on what version you have. When mine's played backwards, this eerie voice says, "Turn me on, dead man" over and over again, then there's the sound of the horrible car crash that took young Paul McTabernacle's life.

I still cry at such a terrible loss.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 01:56

Aye, n th' per, per McTabernacles ain nevair th' ariam an cuedna mu dehe readh an thall again, hae noot'n toot'n an bless 'm.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 02:34

...the IPCC, which spent decades and billion$ fabricating false evidence...

What fabrication? There wasn't any "fabrication". It is all true - true I tell you, everything from snow disappearing on Mt. Kilimanjaro (which was casually mentioned in an Indian tourist magazine that noted the usual summer melt) to Arctic Ice disappearing (which it did, only ice core evidence seems to indicate that these "melts" occur every so often when the weight of the ice actually forces warmer water to act on the ice pack).

all the new stuff Zach is on about

Besides being a troll, Zach's "new stuff" is more protective coloration for the greenies because its all weasel words and filled with qualifiers.

Jeeeez --don't play it backwards whatEVER you do...

Yes but not for the reason you posit. You shouldn't play it backward because it is the same backward as it is forward - in short its a musical palindrome but it is sinister as you can't stop flipping the record over to see if anything is different than the first time you heard it - a closed loop that has driven many a normal person insane - like Zach for instance.

Aye, n th' per, per McTabernacles ain nevair th' ariam an cuedna mu dehe readh an thall again, hae noot'n toot'n an bless 'm

You really need to do something about that overbite.

#6.1.2 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 06:06

aHA! So neither you NOR the Merc speak fake Gaelic! Well, next time i'll use the phonetic Gibberish.

Speaking of which, why isn't ''phonetic'' spelled phonetically? A good question to pose to clan McTabernacle, after poor Paul's wake, of course.

Speaking of which, why does the big sleep start with a wake? That's yet another bass ackwards, bringing the number of local bass ackwardses to two, too.

#6.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-08 12:03

Related.

#6.1.2.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:10

Yep, you're right - none of us speak Garlic.

#6.1.2.1.2 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 12:16

Prediction and forecast are are commonly regarded as synonyms and used interchangeably which is very, very wrong. They are two different things.

Predictions are based on examining past events and/or evidence and projecting that information into defined time frames. Predictions are binary meaning that they either did or didn't happen or will/will not happen.

Forecasts work differently. There are several different types of forecasts, but most work as ensembles - meaning that multiple numerical predictions are conducted using slightly different initial conditions all of which are possibilities. Note the word possibility. Possibilities extensions of the past compared against a current set of observations, or measurements. It's known as a Monte Carlo Hypothesis.

As Ed Lorenz observed, weather forecasts are non-linear in nature. In fact, not to brag, but I was given a copy of his 1963 paper, Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, in which he proved that weather patterns are non-linear to their dynamic nature (and this had a profound effect on my future as I wanted nothing more than to be a mathematician). This eventually became the foundation of his theory of chaos which we all know and love.

In any case, predicting future trends using chaotic forecasting models is an impossibility. Meaning that most Global Warming "predictions" are worthless.

Sorry about going the long way around for such a simple conclusion. :>)

#6.1.3 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 15:53

Tom Francis: In any case, predicting future trends using chaotic forecasting models is an impossibility.

That is not quite correct. While the exact state of a chaotic system can't be predicted with certainty, many future trends are quite predictable. For instance, it will most probably be warmer on average in Paris in July than in December. Similarly, while the exact state of the climate can't be known with certainty, it may be possible to know if the overall energy of the system will be higher.

#6.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 17:03

Well, Zachriel is buzzing around Maggie's Farm, now. Last time, I encountered you, you were tweaking the commenters at Legal
Insurrection. You do get around. I see your blog is still defunct. http://zachriel.blogspot.com/. You know if you commented less and posted more, you'd have leftist followers commenting on your posts.

But posting is harder and it's so easy to nip and buzz around others compositions. Run along now and go pick apart some post on the left and set the poster straight.

#7 Shutterbug on 2013-03-07 23:54

(And I'm still imaging those one-humped camels with long eyelashes to keep the snowflakes from blinding them in Arctic blizzards...)

#8 jma on 2013-03-08 08:56

More proof of Intelligent Design and some damn good bioengineering.

#8.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 10:04

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

"Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which triples the greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The new satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1988 to 2001. It is the best available data for water vapor because it has global coverage. Calculations by a line-by-line radiative code show that upper atmosphere water vapor changes at 500 mb to 300 mb have 29 times greater effect on OLR and temperatures than the same change near the surface. The cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during the 1990 to 2001 period. Radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with warming. The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. During the 1990 to 2001 period, upper atmosphere water vapor from satellite data declines more than that from radiosonde data, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming."

#9 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-08 12:44

Texan99: The new satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1988 to 2001.

The authors specifically state the reasons why the data is not suitable for reaching such a conclusion:

"There are several natural events and especially data and algorithmic time-dependent biases that cause us to conclude that the extant NVAP dataset is not currently suitable for detecting trends in total precipitable water (TPW) or layered water vapor on decadal scales."
http://nvap.stcnet.com/NVAP_Trend_Statement.pdf

Furthermore, the conclusion is contradicted by satellite radiative measurements.
Soden et al, The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening, Science 2005.

#9.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 13:53

Does any of that actually mean anything to you?

#9.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-09 01:41

He's parroting talking points - that's what he does.

#9.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-09 05:53

Yes. How 'bout you? Did you read the statement from the NVAP production team?

#9.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-03-09 07:50

As a small aside, I'm going to be posting my next AGW article this morning around 10, not Monday as I originally noted.

The science is (finally!) settled!

#9.1.1.2.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-09 07:52

I did, actually. It smelled of panic. "Don't you dare use our data for long-term trends! The measurement-bias allegations we routinely pooh-pooh when demonstrated conclusively by the careful work of skeptics are suddenly back in fashion when it suits us. When the data contradict our models, we can merely announce that there may be unspecified bias that warrants extreme skepticism. So everyone should keep using our measurements to support non-threatening conclusions about 'daily to interannual variability studies,' but they must avoid using our data to draw threatening conclusions about climate trends, because we didn't design them for that purpose." Also: "We're hard at work on new data that will have a more useful bias." (Some of that may have been paraphrased for humorous effect.)

#9.1.1.2.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-09 09:03

Texan99: did, actually. It smelled of panic.

Not sure your subjective sense of smell passes for scientific evidence. In particular, they provided specific reasons why the data-set was not ready for long term trend predictions. To make an actual argument, one that doesn't rely on your subjective sense of smell, you would have to address the specifics of the data and methods.

#9.1.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-09 09:09

Glad to, if you've got a link to anything more specific than their couple of terse paragraphs vaguely warning against the dangers of using their data for anything they find inconvenient. There is a stark contrast between this superficial, incurious pronouncement of bias-threat and the agonizing effort put into explaining why the heavily doctored and biased temperature gauge data is A-OK. ("We've fixed it! No, you can't see the original data! You might use it to make bad arguments against the public interest!")

#9.1.1.2.2.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-09 15:48

NVAP Data and Information
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/nvap/table_nvap.html

#9.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-09 16:25

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov

Nothing personal, mind you, but anyone who links to a site that employs international ecocriminal Jim Henson should be taken out in the street and shot. Or, at very least, indicted along with him for conspiring to impoverish nations.

#9.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-09 16:32

Dr. Mercury: Nothing personal, mind you ...

The question concerned the source of the original data.

#9.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-10 09:44

OK, now you realize that site does nothing to explain why we shouldn't use the water vapor data to draw conclusions about water vapor trends?

#9.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-10 00:05

Texan99: OK, now you realize that site does nothing to explain why we shouldn't use the water vapor data to draw conclusions about water vapor trends?

Indeed, it does, including changes in equipment over the period without instrument-to-instrument re-calibration. That means the data has to be homogenized before long term trends can be determined, a process that is not yet complete.

#9.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-10 09:46

Funny. I was stating to my father just today that the over-hyped weather events we've had lately (to a lesser degree Sandy, but certainly every other event of the last year here in NYC), are part of the AGW meme-building exercise.

Why, I had a friend say to me just yesterday "it's amazing what's happening to the weather with Global Warming - it's crazy - we NEVER had weather like this when we were younger!"

To which I replied "yes, we did. You were younger and didn't pay attention, so today's weather seems different to you. It's not."

My mother used to say, after we'd moved to the mountains, that winters seemed more severe than when she was a child. That would be likely because we were now about 2,000 feet above sea level, and several degrees of latitude further north. But it does fit a meme, so the meme becomes 'real' and the science then has to find the "explanation".

Mount Pinatubo, when it erupted, DID launch massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Back then there were several discussions about the effect it would have on global warming. You were not wrong, Doc.
However, over time, the science has had to explain why nothing happened. So it has altered the meme slightly. Now the meme is there wasn't that much CO2, or at least not as much as originally thought.

Zach is right that the 'cooling aerosols' were also part of the blast. Which was part of the original discussion (seems it's become central now).

But it does stand to reason that if volcanoes can act to cool, then maybe we should find ways to trigger more of them. Progressives love managed solutions to problems they've noticed. Government intervention, of any kind to fix anything, usually gets immediately moved to the top of the list for 'fixing things'. I'm surprised Zach opposes increased volcano activity. Certainly we can assist volcanoes in erupting more.

Perhaps global warming is causing volcanoes to erupt more as a means of cooling the planet? I mean, after all, we do have Progressives claiming it's causing earthquakes:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/earthquakes.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/9312347/Hay-Festival-2012-Government-adviser-Bill-McGuire-says-global-warming-is-causing-earthquakes-and-landslides.html

I have yet to see the definitive study that makes the absolute case linking CO2 to any kind of warming (perceived or otherwise). There are theories, none fully developed. There are models, all linear in nature and meant to show one thing - warming.

Gotta wonder what humans would've said as the Ice Age approached:
"I wish we had more SUVs because we could've prevented this...."

It's absurd to assume we have this much of an impact on something we simply don't understand enough about.

Zach loves to post to scientific papers, and then waves off the links we've provided refuting his views - but he is quick to respond to Doc saying "hand waving is not an argument".

His utter devotion to authority is laudable, if it wasn't also kind've sad at the same time. There isn't an ounce of skepticism in his pseudo-scientific body.

It pays to question authority, it pays to question everything. Zach would have us believe the stakes are too high. I think the stakes are just about right - my ability to live as I see fit without having someone else come along and tell me how I have to live because they think my POV is making things worse for others.

IF the rest of the world decides Global Warming is an issue, and seeks to change their lifestyle to "Save the World", God Bless....but I don't see why this has to impact me. Maybe I don't think the world needs saving.

People like Zach are the kid in the class who see the firetruck go by and say "there must be a fire", follow the truck to the site of the alarm, see the hoses out, the hydrants open, water pouring out, and firemen in the house and say "there WAS a fire", and begin to spread the story.
Meanwhile, it was a false alarm....but the story gets out, and all the information is there to back them up, except for one thing - the actual fire. It just hasn't shown up yet.

#10 Bulldog on 2013-03-08 16:05

Zach is a troll apparently with a long long history of being annoying which eventually causes him to get banned from where ever he plies his trade.

But we are tolerant folks here at Maggie's - well, most of us anyway. :>)

#10.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 16:08

You're misusing the word. Zach is anything but a troll by definition. A troll, by definition, attempts to purposefully disrupt the group, often by coming out with wild racist or sexist suggestions, just to get folks riled up. Zach's just arguing a point.

Furthermore, I maintain on my WordPress how-to site that political blogs should encourage members of the opposite side to partake in the discussion. While it's tougher on the other side of the fence, because lefties can be so vicious that a normal person wouldn't hang around very long, I'd cite this site as Exhibit A when it comes to the flip side. Hell, we offer him tips on how to argue his case better -- whud'ya want?

#10.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 16:17

Dr. Mercury: You're misusing the word.

We appreciate that. We do try to stay on topic and add to the discussion. Thought the mention of Byron and the Year Without a Summer would be found interesting to your readers.

"In July 1816 'incessant rainfall' during that 'wet, ungenial summer' forced Mary Shelley, John William Polidori, and their friends to stay indoors for much of their Swiss holiday. They decided to have a contest to see who could write the scariest story, leading Shelley to write Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus and Lord Byron to write "A Fragment", which Polidori later stole and rewrote as The Vampyre — a precursor to Dracula. In addition, Lord Byron was inspired to write a poem, Darkness, at the same time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Cultural_effects

#10.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 17:28

All very nicely put. Be sure to tune in Monday for my next AGW post. It promises to be an amazing revelation.

#10.2 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 16:09

You're actually from Mercury?

Or Mars?

#10.2.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-08 16:10

It's 'Mercury', not 'Mars'. It's an old family name, Greek in origin.

Goes way back.

#10.2.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-08 16:19

Bulldog: Why, I had a friend say to me just yesterday "it's amazing what's happening to the weather with Global Warming - it's crazy - we NEVER had weather like this when we were younger!"

To which I replied "yes, we did. You were younger and didn't pay attention, so today's weather seems different to you. It's not."

That's a good point. Extracting trends is not always a simple matter of memory, which tends to weight the present and dramatic more than the past and ordinary.

Bulldog: Mount Pinatubo, when it erupted, DID launch massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

About 0.05 gigatons.

Bulldog: Back then there were several discussions about the effect it would have on global warming.

Volcanic eruptions have cooling effects due to the ejection of aerosols. This was first conjectured by Benjamin Franklin, and has been known for a long time. For science contemporary to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, you might look at Minnis et al., Radiative climate forcing by the mount pinatubo eruption, Science 1993; Self et al., The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption, University of Washington Press 1993; Hansen et al, Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption, Geophysical Research Letters 1992.

Bulldog: I have yet to see the definitive study that makes the absolute case linking CO2 to any kind of warming (perceived or otherwise).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can directly calculate the increased greenhouse effect as about 1°C per doubling of CO2. As the surface warms, this causes an increase in atmospheric water vapor, which amplifies the original warming effect. There are also long term feedbacks, such as reduced albedo due to melting ice.

Bulldog: His utter devotion to authority is laudable

We're not citing authority, but scientific evidence.

#10.3 Zachriel on 2013-03-08 17:23

We're not citing authority, but scientific evidence.

You're citing bullshit. Here's the real science based on math, not models.

1 - Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99% natural (some argue 100%).

2 - Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor).

3 - Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.12% (0.117% factoring in water vapor) which is less than the natural variability found in the atmosphere.

That's the science, that's the math.

#10.3.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-09 06:23

Tom Francis: You're citing bullshit. Here's the real science based on math, not models.

Mathematical models are models, and you didn't show your math, nor do we understand how you derived your numbers. In any case, "real science" is usually grounded in observation. A number of researchers have studied Earth's energy balance, e.g.,

Kiehl & Trenberth, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1997: "The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W m^-2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W m^-2 ... The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W m^-2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W m^-2."

Here's some basics:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

#10.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-09 08:05

Facts is facts - those is facts not some fantasy crap you parrot like the good troll you are.

#10.3.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-09 09:49

Tom - You obviously didn't read this.

Tsk-tsk.

#10.3.1.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-09 09:54

Useful Global Warming idiots don't understand the difference between prediction and forecast. Models are forecasts and forecasts are based of possibilities, not discrete events with predictive certainty in the future. Which I went to great lengths to define up thread a ways.

Of course it's useful idiots that keep the fire burning in the boiler rooms of global warming spammers. And if nothing else, Zach is a useful idiot troll.

There, I said it.

#10.3.1.1.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-09 10:21

"We're not citing authority, but scientific evidence."

And your readers know that, because you often say so, in an authoritative tone.

#11 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-09 01:45

The 'modern era' of human political thinking began with the French Revolution, wherein among the many lessons taught and learnt is the lesson learnt by the aristocracy, that the result of the peasants and the booj-wah-zee linking up, is the guillotine and the dissolution of kingdoms and courts.

Cut to the meta-argument for 'fighting AGW', that is, that if global anti-AGW policies can be enacted at all, it will happen on the basis of a vague public opinion that there must be something to it, since so much is being made of it.

But what if the so much being made of it, because it alone can prevent the link-up of the third and first worlds, in the marketplace? The peasants and the booj, again, in the market, thinking about capital, casting a jaundiced eye at the royalists and their 'left-wing' governments hanging on by the fingernails.

AGW is made to order for keeping the geography-based first and third worlds in constant conflict, with the non-geography-based aristocracy, having learnt well the lesson of the guillotine, adroitly misdirecting the other two of the game of three.

Enter Zach and his movement, looking for all the world like representatives of the first and third worlds on the stage called 'the UN', when the truth is actually that they are agents of the royal courts.

This truth is easily discovered by a hypothetical debate over the value of capital, cars, consumption, washing machines, and so forth, versus hand-to-mouth farming, held between a western techno (perhaps posing as anti-techno, but, look for the gizmos)-greenie and an African, Bolivian, or Indonesian subsistance farmer, looking to the welfare of his family, fighting the cycle-of-poverty pimps (who occupy the rent-seeking desks blocking the wizard-of-Oz hallway), to actually break out of that cycle, which, in oppressing his family as well as first-world taxpayers, is in fact the dread link-up of the peasants and the booj.

This is Zach's ethical problem, and he knows it. As proof, watch his rebuttal --it will, because it must, be a delicious-looking word salad that must be kept in deep refrigeration lest it rot quickly.

"Behold not the backroom refrigerator electrical wiring and freon tubing, think not of the industrial machining and by-products to create refridgeration, behold only the word-salad, how scrumptious it appears it would be, if it could be eaten, which unfortunately, because of you and your attitude, it can't be, until you vote for it."

#12 buddy larsen on 2013-03-09 15:56

Nicely put, but in light of this morning's startling revelation, I feel this whole thread out to be axed, or at least have the comments turned off so that people who haven't read the article yet won't waste their time on that hackneyed old 'global warming' subject.

What would you do?

#12.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-09 16:00

--so you decided to axe, and axed me, eh? I'd say, before i revel in your revelation, that history is our story, and whenever wherever it gets spiked, the spike is nailed into the future, which (see ''news") bleeds and feels pain.

#12.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-09 16:10

Well, that's what Lizzy Borden said. "Axe me no more questions, and I'll tell you no more lies."

#12.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-09 16:23

"Shet de do'
lock n latch it,
hyar come Lizzie
wif a bran' new hatchet!"

#12.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-03-09 17:18

NOTICE:

Due to the incredible revelation posted yesterday, comments to this and all future global "warming" articles have been suspended. Wasting energy debating a planetary menace that's been scientifically proven by the prestigious Harvard University to be the exact opposite of global "warming" is a waste of everyone's time. Management thanks you for your understanding.

#13 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-10 10:03

The author does not allow comments to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, March 7. 2013

AGW Update: A morning with the MSM